Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > May 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-22058. May 17, 1966.]

EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL., petitioners-appellee, v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, TIMATEO ABDON and PEDRO RAVAL, Respondents-Appellants.

Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Asst. Solicitor General A. A. Torres and Solicitor F. V. Sian, for Appellant.

Castor Raval and Sixto S. Pedro for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES; CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS; CASE AT BAR. — The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies is peculiarly binding on the appellees herein, since they are claiming compensation in their official capacity, and as officers of the administration they should not attempt to circumvent the jurisdiction of the administrative authorities. Reasons of comity and orderly procedure demand that resort be made to the President, as head of the administrative system, before recourse is had to the Courts. That the former Auditor General had ruled against this pretense in the case of other municipalities not excuse appellees in sidestepping administrative remedies and resorting immediately to the Courts. In entertaining these proceedings without such preliminary steps being taken, the Court below incurred in reversible error.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J. B. L., J.:


Direct Appeal by respondents from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte.

Appellees, the Vice-Mayor and Councilors of Laoag, Ilocos Norte, had collected per diems for forty-eight (48) special sessions held by the Council during 1960, and an equal number during 1961, at the rate of P18.00 per session. The Provincial Auditor, however, acting upon a directive of the General Auditing Office (Provincial Auditor’s Memorandum No. 250) took the position that, Pursuant Section 2220 of the Administrative Code, the councilors were only entitled to collect for twenty-four (24) special sessions per annum; and directed the Municipal Treasurer to withhold payment of compensation for subsequent sessions, starting December, 1!961, until the alleged overpayment was covered. Contending that Section 2187 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act 2368, Section 2, in providing "that no per diems may be granted for more than four special sessions a month" authorize the holding of forty-eight such sessions per year, the Vice-Mayor and councilors of Laoag instituted suit in the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Norte against the Auditor General, the Provincial Auditor and the Municipal Treasurer to declare the plaintiffs entitled to hold 48 special sessions a year, and petitioned for injunction to compel payment the per diems withheld, plus damages and costs. The respondent officers moved to dismiss, on the ground that petitioners had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies; but the Court denied their motion and issued a preliminary injunction as prayed for, upon plaintiffs putting up a bond of P2,000.00 each. Respondents then answered pleading lack of cause of action. After the case was submitted upon a stipulation of facts, the Court, by Judge Delfin B. Flores, found for petitioners, and made the preliminary injunction permanent, but awarded no damages costs. Respondents duly appealed to this Court.

We agree with appellant officers that the decision should be reversed. Under section 653 of the Administrative Code as amended by Commonwealth Act 327, any person any aggrieved action or decision of a provincial or city auditor, can appeal to the Auditor General, and thereafter to the President, or to the Supreme Court if the appellant is a person or entity. Appellees Vice Mayor and Councilors of Laoag should have first exhausted this administrative remedy before resorting to the Courts, since it is a well established rule that —

"Where the law provides for the remedies against the actions of an administrative board, body or officer, relief from the Courts actions can be sought only after exhausting all the provided for" (42 Am. .Jur. 579)

and this rule has been repeatedly upheld in our jurisprudence. 1 The rule is peculiarly binding on appellees herein, since they are claiming for compensation in their capacity, and as officers of the administration they should not attempt to circumvent the jurisdiction of the administrative authorities. Reasons of committee and orderly demand that resort be made to the President, as head administrative system, before recourse is had to the Courts.

That the former Auditor General had ruled against the in the case of other municipalities does not excuse appellees in sidestepping administrative remedies and sorting immediately to the Courts. Hence, in entertaining these proceedings without such preliminary step being taken, the Court below incurred in reversible error.

The foregoing dispenses this Court from delving into the other errors assigned by appellants.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is reversed and the petition below ordered dismissed. The injunction issued by the Court a quo is likewise ordered dissolved. Cost against appellees, Emiliano Manuel, Et. Al.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See Montes v. Civil Service Board of Appeals 54 Off. Gaz., (No. 7) 2174; Villanueva v. Ortiz, 56 Off. Gaz., (No. 2) 276; Sec, of Agri, v. Minlawi Mining Asso., 97 Phil., 125; Bongcawil v. Prov. Board, 119 Phil. 591; Gonzales v. Prov. Auditor, L-20568, Nov. 28, 1964.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20341 May 14, 1966 SIMEON S. CLARIDADES v. VICENTE C. MERCADER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20372 May 14, 1966 IN RE: BENJAMIN YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22989 May 14, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-20992 May 14, 1966 IN RE: KOCK TEE YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21486 May 14, 1966 LA MALLORCA and PAMPANGA BUS COMPANY v. VALENTIN DE JESUS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20344 May 16, 1966 POTENCIANO ILUSORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21673 May 16, 1966 FRANCISO MACATANGAY v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-22511 and L-22343 May 16, 196

    ANDRES E. LAZARO v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-22383 and L-22386 May 16, 1966 EXTENSIVE ENTERPRISES CORPORATION v. SARBRO & CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22058 May 17, 1966 EMILIANO D. MANUEL, ET AL. v. PEDRO JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22059 May 17, 1966 MARIO T. LIZARES v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22990 May 19, 1966 BIENVENIDO CAPULONG v. THE ACTING COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-17696 May 19, 1966 DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18138 May 19, 1966 HONORIO J. HERNANDO v. J. FRANCISCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-19815-16 May 19, 1966 FILEMON YEPES, ET AL. v. SAMAR EXPRESS TRANSIT

  • G.R. No. L-20209 May 19, 1966 TAN TIONG ENG v. CITY MAYOR, PASAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20366 May 19, 1966 LEONORA S. PALMA, ET AL. v. Q. & S. INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20682 May 19, 1966 GREGORIO VILLARTA, ET AL. v. FAUSTA CUTAMORA VDA. DE CUYNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21032 May 19, 1966 FRANCISCA GALEOS-VALDEHUEZA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21489 and L-21628 May 19, 1966 MIGUEL MAPALO, ET AL. v. MAXIMO MAPALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21568 May 19, 1966 SERVANDA ENECILLA v. LUZ MAGSAYSAY

  • G.R. No. L-21587 May 19, 1966 BRISTOL MYERS COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21598 May 19, 1966 ENCARNACION VDA. DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. PEDRO DEUDOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21919-20 May 19, 1966 ANGEL S. OLAES v. TEODORO TANDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21952 May 19, 1966 IN RE: LIM CHIAO CUN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22041 May 19, 1966 MELECIO CLARINIO UJANO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22044 May 19, 1966 ZOILO C. PARAGAS v. ESTANISLAO R. BERNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22137 May 19, 1966 MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL. v. CARMELINO ALVENDIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22277 May 19, 1966 ALBERTO AÑONUEVO, ET AL. v. ROBERTO ZURBANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17773 May 19, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMETERIO ORZAME, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22549 May 19, 1966 RENATO D. TAYAG, ET AL. v. ANGELES ELECTRIC CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22550 May 19, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22811 May 19, 1966 MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. DELGADO SHIPPING AGENCIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21981 May 19, 1966 WILFREDO GO BON LEE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20318 May 19, 1966 JOSEPH SOGLOU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21197 May 19, 1966 IN RE: ONG HOCK LIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22823 May 19, 1966 GODOFREDO N. FAVIS v. NICOMEDES T. RUPISAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18452 May 20, 1966 AUGUSTO COSIO, ET AL. v. CHERIE PALILEO

  • G.R. No. L-20552 May 20, 1966 FILIPINAS LIFE ASSURANCE CO., ET AL. v. GONZALO P. NAVA

  • G.R. No. L-21219 May 20, 1966 UY CHIN HONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21353 and L-21354 May 20, 1966 GREGORIO ANURAN, ET AL. v. PEPITO BUÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21380 May 20, 1966 MISAMIS LUMBER CORPORATION v. CAPITAL INSURANCE & SURETY CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-25835 May 20, 1966 CITY OF MANILA, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19660 May 24, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROCIO P. CANO

  • G.R. No. L-20921 May 24, 1966 MARCELO SOTTO v. FILEMON SOTTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20112 May 25, 1966 ROBERTO TOMADO v. JOAQUlN BILBAO

  • G.R. No. L-20874 May 25, 1966 IN RE: JOSELITO YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20818 May 25, 1966 CESAR GUILLERGAN, ET AL. v. RODOLFO GANZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15631 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMOSO SINAON

  • G.R. No. L-20962 May 27, 1966 PACENCIA O. ITCHON v. JUAN M. BALIGOD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18769 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. No. L-19894 May 27, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR E. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21028-29 May 27, 1966 SANTIAGO LABOR UNION v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22079 May 27, 1966 ASIAN SURETY & INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. ONG TING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22370 May 27, 1966 LILIA HERNAEZ v. YAN KAO

  • G.R. No. L-21021 May 27, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. UNITED STATES LINES CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18383 May 30, 1966 CELESTINO C. JUAN v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18892 May 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAKALAHI REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20051 May 30, 1966 ANTIQUE SAWMILLS, INC. v. AQUILES R. ZAYCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20417 May 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. GREGORIO A. VENTURANZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21060 May 30, 1966 CESARIO V. INDUCIL v. VICTOR DE LOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-20313 May 30, 1966 LAURO G. MARQUEZ, v. GABRIEL V. VALERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22207 May 30, 1966 IN RE: NERIO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILI.

  • G.R. No. L-23510 May 30, 1966 LUCIDO GARCON v. REDEMPTORIST FATHERS

  • G.R. No. L-21195 May 31, 1966 NANCY Q. SISON v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-24267-8 May 31, 1966 PERFECTO FERRER, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19066 May 31, 1966 JUANITO YARCIA, ET AL. v. ZOILO CASTRILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21821-22, L-211824-27 May 31, 1966 DIOSDADO C. TY v. FILIPINAS COMPAÑA DE SEGUROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20299 May 31, 1966 ANITA BUENSUCESO DE LAMERA v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21400 May 31, 1966 IN RE: WILLIAM CHUA SIONG HUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.