G.R. No.

139302             October 28, 2002 Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition for
lack of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of
EDUARDO P. CORSIGA, Former Deputy administrative remedies, but the motion was
Administrator, National Irrigation denied on January 8, 1996. The Regional
Administration, petitioner, Trial Court likewise denied the motion for
vs reconsideration on January 13, 1997.
HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, Presiding Alleging that these two orders were issued
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, without jurisdiction, petitioner elevated the
Iloilo City, controversy to the Court of Appeals via a
and ROMEO P. ORTIZO, respondents. petition for certiorari.

DECISION On June 30, 1999, the appellate court

rendered a decision5 finding no merit in the
QUISUMBING, J.: petition and dismissing it. It affirmed the trial
court's jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462
Before us is a petition for review seeking the saying that the doctrine of exhaustion of
reversal of the decision1 of the Court of administrative remedies does not apply
Appeals dated June 30, 1999 in CA-G.R. SP where the controverted act is patently illegal,
No. 44123, dismissing the petition for review arbitrary, and oppressive. Regional Office
filed by petitioner. The petition assailed the Memorandum No. 52, according to the court,
orders dated January 8, 1996 and January was illegal since it violated private
13, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo respondent's constitutional right to security of
City, Branch 36, which respectively denied tenure. Private respondent's original
petitioner's motion to dismiss Civil Case No. appointment as Senior Engineer B in the NIA
22462 and his motion for reconsideration. Jalaur River Irrigation System, Region VI is a
permanent one; thus, it entitled him to a
The facts are undisputed. security of tenure. He cannot, therefore, be
reassigned to another position that involves a
Private respondent Romeo P. Ortizo was the reduction in rank without his consent.
Senior Engineer B in the National Irrigation Concluded the appellate court:
Administration (NIA), Jalaur-Suague River
Irrigation System, Region VI, 2 tasked with the WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE
duty of assisting the Irrigation Superintendent FOREGOING, this petition for certiorari is
in the said station.3 Sometime in June, 1995, DENIED DUE COURSE and is hereby
petitioner Eduardo P. Corsiga, then Regional DISMISSED. No pronouncement as to costs.6
Irrigation Manager of the NIA, Region VI,
issued Regional Office Memorandum (ROM) Hence, this petition where petitioner avers
No. 52, reassigning private respondent to that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding
Aganan-Sta. Barbara River Irrigation System, that:
likewise to assist the Irrigation
4
Superintendent thereat.  Aggrieved, private I
respondent wrote petitioner Corsiga
requesting exemption and citing … THE COURT A QUO [Regional Trial
Memorandum Circular No. 47, Series of 1987 Court] HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE
issued by the NIA Administrator, which states NATURE AND SUBJECT MATTER OF THE
that the policy of rotation applies only to CASE PURSUANT TO SECTION 13, RULE
Department Managers, Irrigation VII OF THE OMNIBUS RULES
Superintendents, Provincial Engineers and IMPLEMENTING BOOK V OF EXECUTIVE
Division Manager of Field Offices. Petitioner ORDER NO. 292.
denied the request. On July 31, 1995, private
respondent filed with the Regional Trial Court II
of Iloilo City a complaint for prohibition and
injunction, with prayer for issuance of … RESPONDENT HAS NO VALID CAUSE
Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of OF ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER FOR
Preliminary Injunction.
FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE jurisdiction on all controversies pertaining to
REMEDIES.7 civil service.

The issues for our resolution are (a) whether In his comment, private respondent maintains
the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over that as a civil service appointee to a position
Civil Case No. 22462, and (b) whether private with a specification of a particular station, he
respondent has a cause of action despite his cannot be validly and legally transferred or
failure to exhaust administrative assigned to any other unit in the same
remedies.1awphil.net agency without his consent. To do so is a
violation of his constitutional right to security
On the first issue, petitioner avers that law of tenure. For this reason, Regional Office
and jurisprudence are clear and Memorandum No. 52 reassigning him to a
incontrovertible on the exclusive jurisdiction station different from that specified in his
of the Civil Service Commission on all cases appointment papers was invalid. Yet, in spite
involving personnel actions including of the patent illegality of the contemplated
reassignment. Petitioner cites Section 13, action, petitioner was adamant in
Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing implementing it. This, according to private
Book V8 of E.O. 292. He stresses our ruling respondent, left him with no other plain,
in Mantala vs. Salvador9 that disciplinary speedy and adequate remedy but to go to
cases and cases involving personnel actions court via a petition for prohibition and
affecting employees in the civil service – – injunction, with prayer for the issuance of a
including appointment through certification, temporary restraining order and/or writ of
promotion, transfer, reinstatement, preliminary injunction.
reemployment, detail, reassignment,
demotion and separation, and employment We shall now resolve the issues raised in this
status and qualification standards–are within petition.
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service
Commission. Likewise cited is our holding (1) Does the Regional Trial Court have
in Dario vs. Mison10 that no fundamental jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462?
difference exists between the Commission on
Elections and the Civil Service Commission The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction
(or the Commission on Audit, for that matter) over all employees of Government branches,
as to the constitutional intent to leave the subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies,
constitutional bodies alone in the including government-owned or controlled
enforcement of laws relative to elections, with corporations with original charters.11 As such,
respect to the former, and the civil service, it is the sole arbiter of controversies relating
with respect to the latter (or the audit of to the civil service.12 The National Irrigation
government accounts, with respect to the Administration, created under Presidential
Commission of Audit). As the poll body is the Decree No. 1702, is a government-owned
"sole judge" of all election cases, so is the and controlled corporation with original
Civil Service Commission the single arbiter of charter. Thus, being an employee of the NIA,
all controversies pertaining to the civil private respondent is covered by the Civil
service. Service Commission.

Petitioner also avers that private respondent's Section 13 Rule VII of the Rules
allegation that the remedy under the Civil Implementing Book V of Executive Order No.
Service Rule is neither speedy nor adequate 292 (the Adm. Code of 1987) provides how
as well as his allegation that he will inevitably appeal can be taken from a decision of a
and doubtlessly be subjected to department or agency head. It states that
administrative charges in case of non- such decision shall be brought to the Merit
compliance with the memorandum, is pure System Protection Board (now the CSC En
speculation and conjecture. Private Banc per CSC Resolution No. 93-2387 dated
respondent's fears of administrative charges June 29, 1993). It is the intent of the Civil
do not, by mere allegation, ipso facto divest Service Law, in requiring the establishment of
the Civil Service Commission of its exclusive a grievance procedure in Rule XII, Section 6
of the same rules, that decisions of lower According to private respondent, petitioner
level officials be appealed to the agency was guilty of bad faith; his real objective was
head,13 then to the Civil Service to assign someone close to him to replace
14
Commission.  Decisions of the Civil Service private respondent. Petitioner's action was
Commission, in turn, may be elevated to the capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, and
Court of Appeals. Under this set up, the trial discriminatory, said private respondent since
court does not have jurisdiction over he was the only one, from among the officials
personnel actions and, thus, committed an or employees of the same rank, who was
error in taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. reassigned. This discrimination constituted a
22462. The trial court should have dismissed grave and patent abuse of discretion
the case on motion of petitioner and let amounting to lack of jurisdiction, against
private respondent question RMO No. 52 which private respondent said he had no
before the NIA Administrator, and then the plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law
Civil Service Commission. As held in Mantala except to institute an action before the
vs. Salvador,15 cases involving personnel regional trial court.
actions, reassignment included, affecting civil
service employees, are within the exclusive However, private respondent failed to reckon
jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. with the fact that the issue in Civil Case No.
22462 was not purely a question of law.
(2) Does private respondent have a cause of Certain facts needed to be resolved first. Did
action<16 although his complaint was filed in private respondent's reassignment involve a
the trial court without first exhausting all reduction in rank? Private respondent
available administrative remedies? claimed his transfer to a new station violated
the rule on reassignment for he was allegedly
Being an NIA employee covered by the Civil transferred to a lower position. 18 But petitioner
Service Law, in our view, private respondent had refuted this contention, adding that his
should have first complained to the NIA order reassigning private respondent was a
Administrator, and if necessary, then appeal lawful exercise of management
to the Civil Service Commission.17 As ruled prerogatives.19 Also, was private respondent
in Abe-Abe vs. Manta, 90 SCRA 524 (1979), the only one, among the employees of his
if a litigant goes to court without first pursuing rank, who was reassigned? Private
his administrative remedies, his action is respondent alleged he was singled out, but
premature, and he has no cause of action to he did not present any evidence to prove it.
ventilate in court. Hence, petitioner asserts Moreover, there is no convincing evidence of
that private respondent's case is not ripe for grave abuse of discretion on petitioner's part.
judicial determination. Private respondent speculated that
petitioner's real intent in reassigning him was
Private respondent contends, however, that to create a vacancy in his position so that
the principle of exhaustion of administrative petitioner could appoint someone close to
remedies is not an absolute rule. It has him. This is a mere allegation which private
exceptions, namely, (1) where the issue respondent failed to substantiate. Official
involved is one of law and cannot be resolved functions are presumed to be regular unless
administratively, (2) where the controverted proven otherwise.20
act is patently illegal, arbitrary, and
oppressive, (3) where irreparable injury Lastly, private respondent claimed urgency in
exists, (4) where there is no plain, speedy, that he had no other recourse but to go to
and adequate remedy, (5) or where urgent court, or he would be charged
circumstances require judicial intervention. administratively. However, under Omnibus
According to private respondent, the Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law, a
circumstances of the case required him to recourse is available to him by way of appeal
urgently act on his reassignment since he which could be brought to the agency head,
might be administratively charged if he with further recourse, if needed, to the Civil
resisted petitioner's order, yet, at the same Service Commission. Worth noting, the
time he could be in estopped to question the possibility of an administrative charge was
order had he yielded to it without protest. only speculative on the part of private
respondent, who could avail of administrative thereat. Aggrieved, private respondent wrote
remedies already cited.lawphil.net petitioner Corsiga requesting exemption and
citing Memorandum Circular No. 47, Series of
In sum, Civil Case No. 22462 is not an 1987 issued by the NIA Administrator, which
exception to the general rule on exhaustion of states that the policy of rotation applies only
administrative remedies. The Court of to Department Managers, Irrigation
Appeals, in our view, committed reversible Superintendents, Provincial Engineers
error in finding that the trial court did not err and Division Manager of Field Offices.
nor gravely abused its discretion for taking Petitioner denied the request. Private
jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462. respondent filed with the Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo City a complaint for
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, prohibition and injunction, with prayer for
and the decision of the Court of Appeals in issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
CA-G.R. SP No. 44123 is REVERSED. The and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
orders dated January 8, 1996 and January
13, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo Petitioner moved to dismiss the petition
City, Branch 36, denying petitioner's motion for lack of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion
to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration, of administrative remedies, but the motion
respectively, are ANNULLED and SET and (another) motion for reconsideration were
ASIDE. Civil Case No. 22462 ought to be and denied. Alleging that these two orders were
is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Costs against issued without jurisdiction, petitioner elevated
private respondent. the controversy to CA. The latter affirmed
the trial court's jurisdiction over the case
SO ORDERED. saying that the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not apply
where the controverted act is patently
illegal, arbitrary, and oppressive.
CASE DIGEST:
Private respondent contends, however, that
 Doctrine of Exhaustion of the principle of exhaustion of administrative
Administrative Remedies remedies is not an absolute rule. It has
exceptions, namely, (1) where the issue
G.R. No. 139302; October 28, 2002 (2D) involved is one of law and cannot be resolved
EDUARDO P. CORSIGA, Former Deputy administratively, (2) where the controverted
Administrator, National Irrigation act is patently illegal, arbitrary, and
Administration vs oppressive, (3) where irreparable injury
HON. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR, Presiding exists, (4) where there is no plain, speedy,
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, and adequate remedy, (5) or where urgent
Iloilo City,  circumstances require judicial intervention.
and ROMEO P. ORTIZO According to private respondent, the
circumstances of the case required him to
FACTS: urgently act on his reassignment since he
might be administratively charged if he
Private respondent Romeo P. Ortizo was resisted petitioner's order, yet, at the same
the Senior Engineer B in the National time he could be in estopped to question the
Irrigation Administration (NIA), Jalaur- order had he yielded to it without protest.
Suague River Irrigation System, Region VI,
tasked with the duty of assisting the Irrigation ISSUE:
Superintendent in the said station. (1995)
Petitioner Corsiga, then Regional Irrigation Whether private respondent has a cause of
Manager of the NIA, Region VI, issued action despite his failure to exhaust
Regional Office Memorandum (ROM) No. 52, administrative remedies.1awphil.net
reassigning private respondent to Aganan-
Sta. Barbara River Irrigation System, likewise
to assist the Irrigation Superintendent
HELD:

NO. Being an NIA employee covered by

the Civil Service Law, private respondent
should have first complained to the NIA
Administrator, and if necessary, then
appeal to the Civil Service Commission.As
ruled in Abe-Abe vs. Manta, 90 SCRA 524
(1979), if a litigant goes to court without first
pursuing his administrative remedies, his
action is premature, and he has no cause
of action to ventilate in court. Hence, the
court agreed with the assertion of petitioner
that private respondent's case is not ripe
for judicial determination.

Further, private respondent claimed urgency

in that he had no other recourse but to go to
court, or he would be charged
administratively. However, under Omnibus
Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law, a
recourse is available to him by way of appeal
which could be brought to the agency head,
with further recourse, if needed, to the Civil
Service Commission. Worth noting, the
possibility of an administrative charge
was only speculative on the part of private
respondent, who could avail of
administrative remedies already
cited.lawphil.net

The petition is GRANTED. In sum, Civil Case

is not an exception to the general rule on
exhaustion of administrative remedies.