GR No.

L-19808 / September 29, 1966

Eldo Carino, Arzenio Miguel, Johnny F. Ilar, Sotero M. De Castro, Gustavo E. Espino, and
Licero D. Espinosa v. Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing Administration
(ACCFA)

Facts:
Petitioners were appointed permanent employees of ACCFA. Except for Gustavo E. Espino, all
of them were lawyers whose job consisted of conducting investigations of charges and
irregularities in any branch thereof. Their items in the budget were abolished resulting to their
termination from service for alleged reasons of economy. They filed suit to compel
reinstatement in court. It found that the economy reason for the abolition of their position was a
mere subterfuge to remove them in order to give room to ACCFA’s Board of Governor’s own
political proteges. While they have not lost confidence of their superiors but rather deserved
progressively-merited promotion in pay, they were ironically removed from service. Bad faith
taints such removal. They were separated from service without cause and as such, entitled for
reinstatement. Hence, the appeal by the petitioners challenging the dismissal of their petition for
non-exhaustion of administrative remedy

Issue:
Whether or not their cause should be dismissed for non-exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Held:
No, their case should not be dismissed because of their non-exhaustion of administrative
remedies. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a hard and fast rule. It admits of
exceptions. Amongst these are that (1) the question in dispute is “purely illegal one” and (2) the
controverted act is patently illegal. There was no necessity to resort first to administrative
remedies because the question involved in the case was purely one of law and that the
petitioner’s dismissal was patently illegal. The present case fits into the foregoing legal precepts.
In consequence, petitioners should be reinstated to their positions with backpay.