Administrative Law

regino
v.
pangasinan
colleges of science and
technology
facts
Petitioner
Khristine
Rea
M.
Regino
was
a
first
year
computer science student at the
respondent-school,
Pangasinan
Colleges
of
Science
and
Technology (PCST) where she was
enrolled, with a part of her
curriculum being a logic and
statistics
subjects
under
the
respondents,
Rachelle
A.
Gamurot and Elissa Baladad. In the
second semester of her school
year, PCST held a fund raising
activity wherein the students were
indirectly required to purchase
tickets for the event for P100.00,
with additional points in their test
scores being the incentive. Those
who failed to avail of the tickets,
however, would be disallowed from
taking their final examinations.
Financially strapped and prohibited
by her religion from attending
dance parties and celebrations,
Regino refused to pay for the
tickets, which led her to be
excluded from the rest of her class
in taking the final examinations
and outright ejected from their
classroom the following day after
publicly naming her and one other
classmate as persons who did not
purchase tickets. Despite their
pleas, the respondents remained
adamant that they were simply
following PCSTs school policy.
Aggrieved, the petitioners went to
the trial court and filed, as pauper

Prior Resort
litigant, a case against the
respondents and the PCST. The trial
court, however, ruled in favor of
the respondents and dismissed the
case due to the non-exhaustion of
administrative remedies, citing that
the question raised in the case
involved the determination of the
wisdom of an administrative policy
of PCST. Hence, the case should
have been initiated before the
proper administrative body, the
Commission of Higher Education
(CHED), which has the power of
supervision and regulation of
tertiary schools under Section 54 of
RA 7722, the Education Act of
1982.
issue
Is the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative
remedies
is
applicable?
held
No. The respondents anchored
their Motion to Dismiss on
petitioners
alleged
failure
to
exhaust administrative remedies
before resorting to the RTC.
According
to
them,
the
determination of the controversy
hinge on the validity, the wisdom
and the propriety of PCSTs
academic policy. However, the
doctrine
of
exhaustion
of
administrative remedies does not
apply to the present case.
The doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative
remedies
(Prior
Resort) states that courts should
not entertain suits unless the
available administrative remedies
have first been resorted to and the

Administrative Law

Prior Resort

proper authorities have been given

the appropriate opportunity to act
and correct their alleged errors, if
any,
committed
in
the
administrative forum. It admits to
certain exceptions, one of which
arises when the issue is purely
legal
and
well
within
the
jurisdiction of the trial court such
as in the present case at bar.

damages; a power beyond the

administrative agency to grant
since it is not a court. Since the
petitioner, at this time, is asking for
damages, the same calls for the
interpretation of the Civil Code; a
function that falls squarely within
the ambit of the courts. As such,
the exhaustion of administrative
remedies cannot bar the petitioner.

In this case, Regino is not asking

for the reversal of the policies of
PCST and neither is she demanding
it to allow her to take her final
examinations since she is already
enrolled in another educational
institution by the time of this
decision. In fact, even if she were
to file a case with CHED, her
request involves the awarding of

Note: Doctrine of Prior Resort/

Doctrine of Primary Administrative
Jurisdiction states that where there
is competence or jurisdiction
vested upon an administrative
body to act upon a matter, no
resort to the courts may be made
before such administrative body
shall have acted upon the matter.