Gualberto Castro vs Hon.

Secretary Ricardo Gloria in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of

Education, Culture and Sports
G.R. 132174 August 20, 2001

FACTS:
Petitioner Gualberto Castro was charged with disgraceful and immoral conduct in a complaint
filed by Porfirio Gutang, Jr. for having an illicit affair with the latter’s wife, Castro’s co-teacher in
Guibuangan Central School, Barili, Cebu. After hearing, the DECS Regional Office VII through Asst.
Superintendent Francisco Concillo declared Castro guilty of the offense charged. He was meted the
penalty of dismissal from service. This decision was affirmed by the DECS Central Office.
Thereafter, on several occasions, Castro incessantly filed with the DECS Central Office motions
for reconsideration and a Motion for Review Setting Aside/Modifying the Decision of the Regional
Director of DECS Region VII. However, all were denied. Thrice thwarted, Castro filed a petition for
mandamus with the RTC of Barili, Cebu, praying among others that his penalty be reduced from
dismissal to one year suspension. The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground of non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies. It ruled that petitioner should have appealed to the Civil Service Commission
before coming to court. When his motion for reconsideration was denied, petitioner filed the present
petition for review on certiorari, contending that for one may directly seek redress from the proper
court when the question to be settled is purely a question of law.

ISSUE:
Whether or not one may directly seek redress from the proper court for pure questions of law.

RULING:
Yes, one may directly seek redress from the proper court for pure questions of law.
The non-observance of the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies results in lack of a
cause of action and is one of the grounds allowed by the Rules of Court for the dismissal of the
complaint. However, this doctrine is not absolute and there are instances when it may be dispensed
with and judicial action may be validly resorted to immediately.
Among these exceptions are: 1) when the question raised is purely legal; 2) when the
administrative body is in estoppel; 3) when the act complained of is patently illegal; 4) when there is
urgent need for judicial intervention; 5) when the claim involved is small; 6) when irreparable damage
will be suffered; 7) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy; 8) when strong public
interest is involved; and 9) in quo warranto proceedings.
In Cortes vs Bartolome, the Court ruled that the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies need not be adhered to when the question is purely legal because issues of law cannot be
resolved with finality by an administrative officer and an appeal would only be futile.
In the present case, petitioner no longer assails the administrative finding of his guilt for the
offense charged. He only impugns the correctness of the penalty of dismissal from service, contending
that the proper penalty for the first offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is only suspension from
service. Undoubtedly, the issue is purely a question of law as the Court only needs to look at the
applicable law or rule to determine whether the penalty of dismissal is in order.
Therefore, the Supreme Court took cognizance of the case and ruled in favor of petitioner. It
reduced the penalty of dismissal to suspension for a period of one year without pay and ordered his
reinstatement considering that he has been out of service for quite a long time.