Regino v PCST.docx

Administrative Law

regino v. pangasinan coll colleg eges es of scie scienc nce e and and technology facts Petitio etitioner ner Khri Khristi stine ne Rea M. Regino was a frst year computer science student at the respondent-school, Pangasinan Colleges o Science and  Technology  Technology PCST! where she was enrolled, with a part o her curri urricu cullum "eing eing a logi logic c and and statistics su"#ects under the respondents, Rachelle $. %amurot and &lissa 'aladad. (n the sec second ond sem semester ster o her her sc scho hool ol year ear, PCST PCST hel held a und und raisi aising ng acti)ity wherein the students were indi indirrectl ectly y re*ui e*uirred to pur purchas chase e tic+e tic+ets ts or the e)ent e)ent or P P . .,, with additional points in their test score scores s "eing "eing the incent incenti)e i)e.. Those Those who ailed to a)ail o the tic+ets, howe)er, would "e disallowed rom ta+ing their fnal eaminations. eaminations. /inancially strapped and prohi"ited "y her her reli eligion gion rom rom atte ttendi nding danc dance e part partie ies s and cele cele"r "rat atio ions ns,, Regino reused sed to pay or the tic+ets, which led her to "e ecluded rom the rest o her class in ta+i ta+ing ng the the fnal fnal eami amina nati tion ons s and and outr outrig ight ht e#ec e#ecte ted d rom rom thei theirr classr classroom oom the ollow ollowing ing day ater ater pu"licly naming her and one other classmate as persons who did not pur purchas chase e tic+ tic+et ets. s. 0esp 0espit ite e thei theirr pleas, pleas, the respo responde ndents nts remai remained ned adam adaman antt that that they they wer were simp simply ly ollowing PCST1s school policy. $ggrie)ed, the petitioners went to the trial court and fled, as pauper

Prior Resort litigant, a case against the respondents and the PCST. PCST. The trial cour court, t, howe howe)e )er, r, rule ruled d in a)o a)orr o  the respondents and dismissed the case due to the non-ehaustion o  administrati)e remedies, remedies, citing that the the *ues *uesti tion on rais raised ed in the the case case in)ol) in)ol)ed ed the deter determin minati ation on o the wisdom o an administrati)e policy o PCST PCST.. 2enc 2ence, e, the the case case sh shou ould ld ha)e ha)e "een "een initi nitiat ate ed "eo "eorre the the prop proper er admi admini nist stra rati ti)e )e "ody "ody,, the the Comm Commis issi sion on o 2igh 2igher er &duc &ducat atio ion n C2& C2&0! 0!,, whic which h has has the the powe powerr o  super)isio sion and regulation o  tertiary schools under Section 34 o  R$ 5566, the the &duca ducati tion on $ct o  786.

issue (s the the doct doctri rine ne o ehau haust stio ion n o  administrati)e remedies is applica"le9

held :o. :o. The respon responden dents ts anchor anchored ed their Motion to 0ismiss on petitioners alleged ailure to ehaust administrati)e remedies "eore resorting to the RTC. $ccording to them, the deter determin minatio ation n o the contr contro)e o)ersy rsy hinge on the )alidity, the wisdom and the propriety o PCST1s acad academ emic ic poli policy cy. 2owe 2owe)e )er, r, the the doctrine o ehaustion o   administr administrati)e ati)e remedi remedies es does not apply to the present case.  The doctrine o ehaustion o  admi admini nist stra rati ti)e )e remed emedie ies s Pri Prior or Resort! esort! state states s that that courts courts should should not entertain ain su suiits unless the a)aila"le a)aila"le administra administrati)e ti)e remedie remedies s ha)e frst "een resorted to and the

Administrative Law

Prior Resort

proper authorities ha)e "een gi)en the appropriate opportunity to act and correct their alleged errors, i  any, committed in the administrati)e orum. (t admits to certain eceptions, one o which arises when the issue is purely legal and well within the  #urisdiction o the trial court such as in the present case at "ar.

damages; a power "eyond the administrati)e agency to grant since it is not a court. Since the petitioner, at this time, is as+ing or damages, the same calls or the interpretation o the Ci)il Code; a unction that alls s*uarely within the am"it o the courts. $s such, the ehaustion o administrati)e remedies cannot "ar the petitioner.

(n this case, Regino is not as+ing or the re)ersal o the policies o  PCST and neither is she demanding it to allow her to ta+e her fnal eaminations since she is already enrolled in another educational institution "y the time o this decision. (n act, e)en i she were to fle a case with C2&0, her re*uest in)ol)es the awarding o 

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. Note: