ANACLETO ALZATE, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRINCIPAL OF THE SOUTH PROVINCIAL HIGH SCHOOL, AGOO, LA UNION, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. BENIGNO ALDANA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACIT…

Anacleto Alzate, Principal of the South Provincial High School in
Agoo, La Union Province, has taken this present appeal from an order of
the Court of First Instance of La Union in Civil Case No. 1308
dismissing his petition for mandamus to compel herein respondents
Director of Public Schools and the Division Superintendent of Schools
for La Union, to adjust his salary pursuant to the provisions of
Section 4, paragraphs (a) and (b) of Republic Act No.
842, entitled Public School Salary Act of 1953. The order of dismissal
is predicated on the finding that the same was premature, petitioner
not having exhausted all the administrative remedies available to him.

The records show that on December 20, 1957, petitioner wrote to the
respondent Director of Public Schools claiming that taking into account
his 24-years service in the Bureau of Public Schools in various
capacities, the last one as secondary principal, he (petitioner) was
entitled under Section 4, paragraph (a) of Republic Act No.
842 to an automatic salary increase of 4 rates (1 rate for every 5
years of service) after his salary has been adjusted to the minimum,
and to an additional automatic salary increase of 1 rate, pursuant to
paragraph (b) of the same section and Act, for having passed
the examination for Superintendent of Private Schools given by the
Civil Service Commission. The Director of Public Schools, in his 2nd
Indorsement dated March 10, 1958, addressed to the Division
Superintendent of Schools for La Union, denied petitioner’s request
contending that in the adjustment of salary of secondary principals,
only the actual number of years of service as such secondary principal
would be considered, and as petitioner has to his credit in that
capacity 9 years, 8 months and 15 days, he would be entitled only to
one rate of salary increase; and since the examination taken and passed
by petitioner was only for the Bureau of Private Schools, petitioner
was not entitled to the benefit of paragraph (b) of the Public School Salary Act.

This indorsement of denial was received by the petitioner on April
14, 1958, On May 17, 1958, petitioner requested for a reconsideration
of the aforementioned ruling, citing in support thereof an opinion of
the Secretary of Justice (Op. No. 144, S-1956) that in .the adjustment
of salaries under Republic Act No. 842, the length of service in the
educational branch of the government and not merely that in the
position occupied at the time of the adjustment, should be considered.
This letter for reconsideration was received by the Bureau of Public
Schools on May 23, 1958. It appears that on May 30, 1958, the same has
been processed by a certain Mr. Samson of the Bureau of Public Schools
and a memorandum thereon was submitted to Dr. Aldana, Dr. Bernardino,
and Dr. Guiang, all of the same bureau.

On June 11, 1958, petitioner, not having received any ruling on his
request for reconsideration and fearing that the amount appropriated
for the payment of the salary adjustment of public schools teachers and
officials, if not disbursed or committed before the expiration of the
fiscal year on June 30, 1958, would be reverted to the general funds of
the Government, filed a mandamus proceeding in the Court of First
Instance of La Union for the purpose indicated in the beginning of this
opinion.

On June 27, 1958, after due hearing on the petition for a writ of
preliminary preventive and mandatory injunction, the court in its order
of the same date made the following observation:

“After a conscientious deliberation between the
petitioner and the Representatives of the respondents with the
assistance of their respective counsel, it has been agreed in open
court that the Director of Public Schools shall recommend to the proper
officials not later than June 30, 1958 and before the close of office
hours on that date the sum of P840.00 to accounts receivable the amount
being claimed by the herein petitioner and all other sums that the
Director of Public Schools may believe necessary for the interest of
all other school official’s and teachers who may be benefited with
whatever favorable decision, if any, that may be secured by the
petitioner in this case. By reason of such assurance, the petitioner
desisted in pressing for the resolution on his prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction regarding the
certification to accounts payable of said amount of P840.00.”

Thereafter, respondents filed their motion to dismiss on the grounds
that the petition stated no cause of action against respondents; that
petitioner had not exhausted all administrative remedies before coming
to court, and that the lower court had acquired no jurisdiction, over
the case.

On July 31, 1958, the court a quo, acting on the motion to dismiss and the objection thereto, made the following observation:

“There is no question that the petitioner following
the opinion rendered by the Secretary of Justice may be right in his
contention that in making salary adjustments under Republic Act 842,
the length of service rendered in the educational branch of the
government and’ not merely that in the position occupied at the time of
the adjustment ought to be considered. But this court believes and so
holds that notwithstanding such opinion, the present action taken and
filed by the petitioner is quite premature because all the
administrative remedies have not as yet been exhausted.”

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without prejudice to the
right of the petitioner to file an appropriate action at the opportune
time.

The only question presented in this appeal is whether really the
petition filed on June 11, 1958, while the Director of Public Schools
was still considering petitioner’s request for reconsideration of the
previous ruling of March 10, 1958, stated no cause of action in view of
the non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. It appears from the
petition that the reason for its filing without awaiting the final
action on the part of the respondent Director of Public Schools was the
urgency of preventing the automatic reversion as of July 1, 1958, after
the expiration of the then current fiscal year, of the sum appropriated
in Republic Act No. 2042 for the adjustment of salary of public school
officials and teachers pursuant to Republic Act No. 842. Petitioner
contends that if he waited for the final decision on his petition for
reconsideration which was not forthcoming, and in fact did not come,
before June 30, 1958, whatever action may thereafter be taken by
respondent, even if favorable to petitioner, would be of no avail after
the reversion of the funds appropriated for the purpose of salary
adjustment. Hence, he claims, that to require him to exhaust the
administrative remedies would, in the circumstances of the case, in
effect amount to a nullification of his claim.

There is merit in petitioner’s contention. The fact that the parties
had to agree and the court had to approve the agreement that the
Director of Public Schools shall recommend to the proper officials not
later than June 30, 1958 and before the closing of office hours on that
date the commitment of the sum of P840.00 claimed by petitioner, to
accounts payable in order to prevent its reversion, is a recognition by
the parties as well as the court of the validity and urgency of the
action taken by the petitioner-appellant. It would seem, therefore,
that in the particular circumstances of the present case, petitioner
had sufficient cause of action at the time of the filing of his
petition on June 11, 1958, and a resort to the court without awaiting
for the final decision of the administrative officers is not, in view
of the special situation, premature.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is hereby set aside and the case
remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings. Without costs.
So ordered.

Paras, C, J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.
Gutierrez David, J., reserves his vote.