198 - Cipriano v. Marcelino
198 - Cipriano v. Marcelino
198 - Cipriano v. Marcelino
MARCELINO
February 11, 1972| Castro J. | Exception to the Rule: Urgency
Digester: Alexis Bea
SUMMARY: Cipriano resigned as a record clerk in the office of
the municipal treasurer. The latter (Marcelino), refused to pay her
the salary due her as well as other commutations. Thus, Cipriano
filed a petition for mandamus. Marcelino claims that she had not
exhausted all the administrative remedies yet thus, the petition
should be dismissed. The court held that this principle does not
apply in the present case because it is obviously ridiculous to
require that the case for P949 go all the way up to the Office of the
President before going to courts.
DOCTRINE: The principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is not without exception, not is it a condition precedent
to judicial relief. The principle may be disregarded when it does
not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. It may and
should be relaxed when its application may cause great and
irreparable damage.
FACTS:
Leticia Cipriano served as record clerk in the office of
municipal treasurer Gregorio P. Marcelino of Calabanga,
Camarines Sur, from January 1, 1963 to January 15, 1966 (she
resigned), at a monthly salary of eighty pesos (P80).
Because the respondent municipal treasurer, upon her
severance from the service, refused to pay her salary
corresponding to the period from September 1, 1965 to
January 15, 1966, inclusive (P349), as well as the commutation
equivalent of her accumulated vacation and sick leaves (P600),
Cipriano filed on May 5, 1966 with the Court of First Instance
of Camarines Sur an action for mandamus to compel the said
municipal treasurer to pay her the total amount of P949.
Marcelino: MTD because she had not "exhausted all
administrative remedies before filing the present action"
o exhaustion of all administrative remedies is a condition
precedent before an aggrieved party may have judicial
recourse.
Lower courts: granted motion and ordered the dismissal of the
case.
Hence, the present petition for certiorari