Title Cudia v The Superintendent of PMA

Ponente CARPIO, J.
Doctrine Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Facts  Aldrin Jeff Cudia was a member of the Philippine Military
Academy (PMA) Siklab Diwa Class of 2014. On November 14,
2013, Cudia’s class had a lesson examination in their Operations
Research (OR) subject the schedule of which was from 1:30pm
to 3pm.
 However, after he submitted his exam paper, Cudia made a
query to their OR teacher. Said teacher, then asked Cudia to wait
for her. Cudia complied and as a result, he was late for his next
class (English). Later, the English teacher reported Cudia for
being late.
 In his explanation, Cudia averred that he was late because his
OR class was dismissed a bit late. The tactical officer (TO) tasked
to look upon the matter concluded that Cudia lied when he said
that their OR class was dismissed late because the OR teacher
said she never dismissed her class late. Thus, Cudia was meted
with demerits and touring hours because of said infraction.
 Cudia did not agree with the penalty hence he asked the TO
about it. Not content with the explanation of the TO, Cudia said
he will be appealing the penalty he incurred to the senior tactical
officer (STO). The TO then asked Cudia to write his appeal.
 In his appeal, Cudia stated that his being late was out of his
control because his OR class was dismissed at 3pm while his
English class started at 3pm also. To that the TO replied: that on
record, and based on the interview with the teachers concerned,
the OR teacher did not dismiss them (the class) beyond 3pm and
the English class started at 3:05pm, not 3pm; that besides, under
PMA rules, once a student submitted his examination paper, he is
dismissed from said class and may be excused to leave the
classroom, hence, Cudia was in fact dismissed well before 3pm;
that it was a lie for Cudia to state that the class was dismissed
late because again, on that day in the OR class, each student
was dismissed as they submit their examination, and were not
dismissed as a class; that if Cudia was ordered by the teacher to
stay, it was not because such transaction was initiated by the
teacher, rather, it was initiated by Cudia (because of his query to
the teacher), although there were at least two students with
Cudia at that time querying the teacher, the three of them
cannot be considered a “class”; Cudia could just have stated all
that instead of saying that his class was dismissed a bit late,
hence he lied. The STO sustained the decision of the TO.
 Later, the TO reported Cudia to the PMA’s Honor Committee (HC)
for allegedly violating the Honor Code. Allegedly, Cudia lied in his
written appeal when he said his class was dismissed late hence,
as a result, he was late for his next class.
 The Honor Code is PMA’s basis for the minimum standard of
 behavior required of their cadets. Any violation thereof may be a
ground to separate a cadet from PMA.
 Cudia submitted an explanation to the HC. Thereafter, the HC,
which is composed of nine (9) cadets, conducted an
investigation. After two hearings and after the parties involved
were heard and with their witnesses presented, the HC
reconvened and the members cast their vote. The initial vote was
8-1: 8 found Cudia guilty and acquitted Cudia. Under PMA rules
(Honor System), a dissenting vote means the acquittal of Cudia.
However, they also have a practice of chambering where the
members, particularly the dissenter, are made to explain their
vote. This is to avoid the “tyranny of the minority”. After the
chambering, the dissenter was convinced that his initial “not
guilty vote” was improper, hence he changed the same and the
final vote became 9-0. Thus, Cudia was immediately placed
inside PMA’s holding center.
 Cudia appealed to the HC chairman but his appeal was denied.
Eventually, the Superintendent of the PMA ordered the dismissal
of Cudia from the PMA.
 Cudia and several members of his family then sent letters to
various military officers requesting for a re-investigation. It was
their claim that there were irregularities in the investigation done
by the HC. As a result of such pleas, the case of Cudia was
referred to the Cadet Review and Appeals Board of PMA (CRAB).
 Meanwhile, Cudia’s family brought the case to the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR) where it was alleged that PMA’s “sham”
investigation violated Cudia’s rights to due process, education,
and privacy of communication.
 Eventually, the CRAB ruled against Cudia. This ruling was
affirmed by the AFP Chief of Staff. But on the other hand, the
CHR found in favor of Cudia.
 PMA averred that CHR’s findings are at best recommendatory.
Cudia filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus
before the Supreme Court. PMA opposed the said petition as it
argued that the same is not proper as a matter of policy and that
the court should avoid interfering with military matters.
Contentions Petitioner [Name] Respondent [Name]
Xxx
xxx
Lower Courts [insert rationale]
Appellate Court
Issue W/N there was an exhaustion of administrative remedies
SC Ruling Yes.

In general, no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or

threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been
exhausted. The rationale behind the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies is that “courts, for reasons of law, comity, and
convenience, should not entertain suits unless the available
administrative remedies have first been resorted to and the proper
authorities, who are competent to act upon the matter complained of,
have been given the appropriate opportunity to act and correct their
alleged errors, if any, committed in the administrative forum.” In the
U.S. case of Ringgold v. United States, 420 F. Supp. 698 (1976), which
was cited by respondents, it was specifically held that in a typical case
involving a decision by military authorities, the plaintiff must exhaust his
remedies within the military before appealing to the court, the doctrine
being designed both to preserve the balance between military and
civilian authorities and to conserve judicial resources. Nonetheless, there
are exceptions to the rule. In this jurisdiction, a party may directly resort
to judicial remedies if any of the following is present:

1. when there is a violation of due process;

2. when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
3. when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction;
4. when there is estoppel on the part of the administrative agency
concerned;
5. when there is irreparable injury;
6. when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts as an alter
ego of the President bear the implied and assumed approval of the
latter;
7. when to require exhaustion of administrative remedies would be
unreasonable;
8. when it would amount to a nullification of a claim;
9. when the subject matter is a private land in land case proceedings;
10. when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate
remedy; and
11. when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial
intervention.

Petitioners essentially raise the lack of due process in the dismissal of

Cadet 1CL Cudia from the PMA. Thus, it may be a ground to give due
course to the petition despite the non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Yet more significant is the fact that during the pendency of
this case, particularly on June 11, 2014, the Office of the President
finally issued its ruling, which sustained the findings of the AFP Chief and
the CRAB. Hence, the occurrence of this supervening event bars any
objection to the petition based on failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.