G.R. No. 140835 - Gonzales vs. Narvasa

On February 3, 1984, the Leyte State College Board of Trustees passed Resolution No. 53 confirming the designation of Dr. Ofelia P. Triste as Vice-President for Academic Affairs and Development, as mandated by Presidential Decree No. 944.
The designation was made under the statutory framework, which provided that the Board, on the recommendation of the college president, had the power to designate a Vice-President with duties to assist in administration and automatically assume the presidency when vacant.
An official document issued by the acting chairman of the Board further formalized this designation, citing the specific provision (Section 6, paragraph "C") in the Charter of Leyte State College.

Initially, the appointment was validated by setting a basic salary of ₱39,288 plus representation and transportation allowances.
The college president sought clarification on compensation from the Minister of Budget, which resulted in an opinion that the total compensation should include a basic salary adjusted to ₱41,292 plus an honorarium of ₱4,548, in addition to allowances, thereby establishing the financial basis for the Vice-President’s role.
Although the Personnel Services Itemization for 1984 did not initially include the Vice-President position, the college plantilla was later adjusted to list Dr. Triste as “Professor 6 (Vice-President)” with a salary of ₱54,600 (later adjusted to ₱55,644), confirming her status.

Dr. Triste discharged her functions as Vice-President for over two years, undertaking the responsibilities expected of the role, which included administrative and supervisory duties.
In February 1986, a reorganization took place as Dr. Purificacion M. Flores was designated officer-in-charge and then appointed as the college president following the retirement of the incumbent.
Anticipating a move to replace her, Dr. Triste submitted a position paper on July 18, 1986, arguing that the Vice-President position was not vacant and that her term was not co-terminous with that of the president. She also asserted that she remained qualified for the college presidency.

Despite her submissions, on August 21–29, 1986, actions were taken by the new administration: a letter from President Flores on August 29, 1986, confirmed Resolution No. 42, which replaced Dr. Triste with Dr. Cres V. Chan-Gonzaga as Vice-President.
Dr. Triste contended that her removal and the subsequent designation of her replacement violated her constitutional right to security of tenure and that due process was not observed.
Following her petition for reconsideration, the Board noted and discussed her appeal; however, no official document was furnished explaining the grounds of her termination, and repeated requests for certified copies of the pertinent documents went unheeded.

On January 12, 1987, Dr. Triste filed an appeal with the Review Committee of the Ministry of Justice under Executive Order No. 17, arguing that she had been demoted, stripped of her benefits, and legally ousted without proper notice.
The Review Committee dismissed her appeal on the technical ground that it was filed beyond the 10-day period prescribed by the order, even though there were disputes as to when this period should have commenced.
The failure to provide formal notice of separation and the absence of official, certified copies of the resolutions underscored the procedural defects in the removal process.

The respondents argued that, as Dr. Triste had not exhausted all available administrative remedies—specifically, she did not appeal to the president before resorting to judicial relief—the petition should be dismissed.
However, the Court considered the several exceptions (need for speedy judicial relief, the presentation of a purely legal question, patently illegal act, and denial of due process) as sufficient grounds to bypass the exhaustion requirement.

Whether the designation on February 3, 1984, despite being termed as a “designation,” effectively constituted a permanent appointment with all attendant rights, including security of tenure, as later evidenced by its inclusion in the college plantilla and the compensation adjustments.
Whether, in light of statutory provisions and the Civil Service Commission’s approval, the appointment could be considered equivalent to an “appointment” rather than a mere “designation.”

Whether the replacement of Dr. Triste by Dr. Chan-Gonzaga complied with the procedural due process requirements mandated by Executive Order No. 17, particularly concerning the issuance of a proper notice of separation.
Whether the technical dismissal of her petition for reconsideration (due to the alleged lapse of the 10-day filing period) amounted to an abuse of discretion that violated her right to due process.

Whether the requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies was rigidly applicable in this case, or if exceptions (such as the urgency for judicial relief arising from a patently illegal act and denial of due process) justified the filing of the petition for certiorari directly in court.