Philippine Administrative System

INSTRUCTION:Answer the questions clearly and concisely.Your answers should demonstrate your knowledge of Legal Doctrine and for the Quality of your Legal Reasoning.

CASE NO. 3

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That the petitioner is of legal age, a widow and a resident of the Philippines and that the respondent is a government instrumentality or agency, duly vested with authority to implement the provisions of Backpay Law, otherwise known as Republic Act No. 897, further amending Republic Act No. 304;

2. That the petitioner is the widow of the late Lt. Romeo Yu, a Chinese national, and bonafide member the 1st Regiment, United State-Chinese Volunteers in the Philippines; died in a battle at Rizal Province; and certified by the Armed Forces of the Philippines as having rendered a meritorious military services during the Japanese occupation;

3. That petitioner as widow of the said recognized deceased veteran, filed an application for back pay;

4. The Secretary and Chief of Office Staff of theCommission sent a letter to General Vicente Lopez of the United States-Chinese Volunteers in the Philippines apprising the latter that the Commission has reaffirmed its solution granting the back pay to alien members; the AFP certifiedthat deceased veteran has rendered service as a recognized guerrilla;

5. That after due deliberation respondent revoked its previous stands and ruled that aliens are not entitled to back pay;

6. That on February 13, 1957, the respondent of the Commission, through its Secretary & Chief of Office Staff, made a formal reply to the aforesaid claim of the herein petitioner denying her request on the ground that aliens are not entitled to backpay;

7. That upon refusal of the Commission the petitioner brought the case direct to this Honorable Court by way of mandamus;

The trial court ordered respondent Commission to give due course to the claim of herein petitioner. Against the decision, the respondent instituted this appeal and it further contended by the Commission that the petitioner should have first exhausted her administrative remedies by appealing to the President of the Philippines, and that her failure to do so is a bar to her action in court.

ISSUE: Whether or Not (WON) petitioner's failure to exhaust her administrative remedies bars subsequent action in courts