Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No.

L-10759 May 20, 1957

LEONARDO MONTES, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD O APPEALS a!" THE SECRETAR# O PUBLIC $OR%S AND COMMUNICATIONS, respondents-appellees. Gonzalo U. Garcia for appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Ambrosia Padilla and Solicitor Eriberto D. Ignacio for appellees. LABRADOR, J.& Petitioner-appellant was on and before Januar , !"#$, a watch%an of the &loatin' E(uip%ent )ection, Ports and *arbors +ivision, Bureau of Public ,or-s. .n Ad%inistrative Case No. R-/!/0 instituted a'ainst hi% for ne'li'ence in the perfor%ance of dut 1+red'e No. 2 under hi% had sun- because of water in the bil'e, which he did not pu%p out while under his care3, the Co%%issioner of Civil )ervice e4onerated hi%, on the basis of findin's %ade b a co%%ittee. But the Civil )ervice Board of Appeals %odified the decision, findin' petitioner 'uilt of contributor ne'li'ence in not pu%pin' the water fro% the bil'e, and ordered that he be considered resi'ned effective his last da of dut with pa , without pre5udice to reinstate%ent at the discretion of the appointin' officer. Petitioner filed an action in the Court of &irst .nstance of Manila to review the decision, but the said court dis%issed the action on a %otion to dis%iss, on the 'round that petitioner had not e4hausted all his ad%inistrative re%edies before he instituted the action. 6he case is now before us on appeal a'ainst the order of dis%issal. 6he law which was applied b the lower court is )ection 0 of Co%%onwealth Act No. #"/, which provides7 6he Civil )ervice Board of Appeals shall have the power and authorit to hear and decide all ad%inistrative cases brou'ht before it on appeal, and its decisions in such cases shall be final, unless revised or %odified b the President of the Philippines. .t is ur'ed on the appeal that there is no dut i%posed on a part a'ainst who% a decision has been rendered b the Civil )ervice Board of Appeals to appeal to the President, and that the tendenc of the courts has been not to sub5ect the decision of the President to 5udicial review. .t is further ar'ued that if decisions of the Auditor 8eneral %a be appealed to the courts, those of the Civil )ervice Board of Appeals need not be acted upon b the President also, before recourse %a be had to the courts because such a courts. .t is also ar'ued that if a case is appealed to the President, his action should be final and not reviewable b the courts because such a course of action, would be dero'ator to the hi'h office of the President. 6he ob5ection to a 5udicial review of a Presidential act arises fro% a failure to reco'ni9e the %ost i%portant principle in our s ste% of 'overn%ent, i.e., the separation of powers into three coe(ual depart%ents, the e4ecutive, the le'islative and the 5udicial, each supre%e within its own assi'ned powers and duties. ,hen a presidential act is challen'ed before the courts of 5ustice, it is not to be i%plied therefro% that the E4ecutive is bein' %ade sub5ect and subordinate to the courts. 6he le'alit of his acts are under 5udicial review, not because the E4ecutive is inferior to

the courts, but because the law is above the Chief E4ecutive hi%self, and the courts see- onl to interpret, appl or i%ple%ent it 1the law3. A 5udicial review of the President:s decision on a case of an e%plo ee decided b the Civil )ervice Board of Appeals should be viewed in this li'ht and the brin'in' of the case to the courts should be 'overned b the sa%e principles as 'overn the 5udicial review of all ad%inistrative acts of all ad%inistrative officers. 6he doctrine of e4haustion, of ad%inistrative re%edies re(uires where an ad%inistrative re%ed is provided b statute, as in this case, relief %ust be sou'ht b e4haustin' this re%ed before the courts will act. 1;0 A%. Jur. #/<-#/!.3 6he doctrine is a device based on considerations of co%it and convenience. .f a re%ed is still available within the ad%inistrative %achiner , this should be resorted to before resort can be %ade to the courts, not onl to 'ive the ad%inistrative a'enc opportunit to decide the %atter b itself correctl , but also to prevent unnecessar and pre%ature resort to the courts. 1Ibid.3 )ection 0 of Co%%onwealth Act No. #"/ above-(uoted is a clear e4pression of the polic or principle of e4haustion of ad%inistrative re%edies. .f the President, under who% the Civil )ervice directl falls in our ad%inistrative s ste% as head of the e4ecutive depart%ent, %a be able to 'rant the re%ed that petitioner pursues, reasons of co%it and orderl procedure de%and that resort be %ade to hi% before recourse can be had to the courts. ,e have applied this sa%e rule in De la Paz, vs. Alcaraz, et al., "" Phil., !$<, #0 =ff. 8a9., $<$>, ig!el et al., vs. "e#es, et al., "$ Phil., #;0, and especiall in Ang $!an %ai & 'o. vs. $he Import 'ontrol 'ommission , "! Phil., !;$, and we are loathe to deviate fro% the rule we have consistentl followed, especiall in view of the e4press provision of the law 1section 0, Co%%onwealth Act No. #"/3. 6he 5ud'%ent appealed fro% is affir%ed, with costs a'ainst appellant. (engzon, Padilla, ontema#or, "e#es, A., (a!tista Angelo, 'oncepcion, "e#es, ).(.*., Endencia and +eli,, )).,concur.