ILDEFONSO D. YAP AND PHILIPPINE HARVADIAN COLLEGE, PETITIONERS AND APPELLANTS VS. DANIEL M. M. SALCEDO, IN HIS PRIVATE CAPACITY AND AS DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS,…

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of  First Instance of  Manila,  denying’ a petition of petitioner-appellant for the issuance of a writ of mandamus against respondent-appellee,  in his capacity as Director of the  Bureau  of Private Schools, to compel him to furnish petitioner-appellant with true copies  of the transcript of records  of four students  of the defunct Mindanao Academy, Oroquieta, Misamis Occidental. Petitioner-appellant acquired the Mindanao Academy  on May 10, 1954.  On December 19, 1956, he sent a letter to the respondent-appellee  requesting that he be  furnished true copies  of the records of each of four students.  In answer respondent suggested that said records be  secured from the former owners of the academy.   Upon receipt of  this denial petitioner insisted  upon his request, explaining that the records of the former school were in a disordered  topsy-turvey  condition,  threatening  to  file charges  against  respondent if  he fails to furnish the records requested within 96 hours, etc.   This second letter was coursed through  the Secretary of  Public  Education. The respondent did not  heed the demand and threat, explaining that it is not the policy of his Bureau to issue copies of its records to schools, unless the  latter have suffered  a calamity that has caused loss of its records; that his  office, upon  orders of the Secretary,  is checking records of public school teachers who are claiming adjustment of their salaries, and the issuance of copies might nullify the work  of investigation; and that until his office has  completed the investigation of the  records  in  question and  is  convinced that they are  authentic, no true copies could  be used.

Thereupon, petitioner brought the action in the Court of  First  Instance of Manila.  This  court  denied the petition on  three grounds: (1)  that no appeal has been made by petitioner-appellant  to the  Secretary of Education,  which is a  more speedy  and adequate remedy; (2) that there is no specific legal duty on the part of respondent to issue the  copies demanded;  and  (3) no evidence was submitted that  the records  in  question  can not be obtained.

We hold  that  the  court below  correctly  denied the petition for failure of petitioner-appellant  to exhaust the administrative remedy, most  speedy  and adequate, of appealing the refusal of the respondent-appellant  to his immediate superior, the Secretary of Education, in accordance  with the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies  enunciated by this Court in a  great number of cases.   (Lamb vs. Phipps, 22 Phil., 456; Miguel vs. Vda. de Reyes, 93 Phil., 542;  Wee Poco vs. Posadas, 64 Phil., 640; Lucas vs. Durian, G.  R. No. 1-7886, September 23, 1957; Harry Lyons, Inc., vs. U.S.A.,  104 Phil., 594).

 The applicability of the principle above mentioned becomes imperative  if  we  take  into  account  that the petitioner-appellant had been expressly advised by letter of respondent-appellee that the Secretary of Education had  given instructions for the checking of the records of public school teachers who are claiming  adjustment of their salaries in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 842, which instructions might fail of enforcement if records of teachers in respondent’s office are  divulged. (Petitioner-appellant’s brief, pp.  7-8).  Under these  circumstances, it is evident that the remedy most appropriate and  speedy available to petitioner was an  appeal  to  the Secretary of Education in whose discretion the enforcement or non-enforcement of the instructions being carried out  by respondent-appellee clearly  lies.  In  passing, it may be illuminating to recall the fact, of which we may take judicial notice, that upon enactment  of Republic  Act No. 842, which standardized the salaries  of public school teachers according to their degrees, a mad scramble  for degrees ensued among teachers, giving rise to the  indiscriminate issuance of diplomas by private schools, which in turn  resulted  in  the  “diploma mill” scandals then subject of investigation.

Without considering the  other  grounds  given by  the court a quo for denying the petition, we  hold that under the  particular  circumstances of the  present case  said denial  is  fully justified.  Coursing of the communication or request through the Secretary of Education can  not be considered  as an  appeal to  this official.

The decision subject of appeal  is hereby affirmed, with costs against  petitioner-appellant.   So ordered.

Paras,  C. J., Bengzon,  Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.  B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.