HON. ISIDRO CARIÑO, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. BERNARDO REYES, Regional Director, DECS, Region III, vs. HONORABLE CARLOS OFILADA, in his capacity as Presiding Judge, Branch 15, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan, PRISCILLA RAMOS,…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 102836
- Promulgated: 1993-01-18
- Ponente: Davide, Jr., J.
Doctrine
Granting a motion to intervene and issuing a preliminary mandatory injunction that effectively reinstates intervenors and orders back pay can constitute grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Administrative recall or setting aside of an agency decision and the lapse of a suspension may entitle respondents to reinstatement, subject to any formal investigation the agency may still conduct.
Facts
Petitioners/intervenors sought nullification of a DECS Regional Director decision and reinstatement to their teaching posts; they referenced a 6 February 1991 decision and claimed receipt on 19 February 1991.
Director Reyes on 6 September 1991 set aside and recalled the decision in Case No. DECSRO-III-91-001 and ordered a formal investigation, leading to reinstatement and payroll for backwages.
The trial court in Civil Case No. 210-M-91 admitted intervention and issued a preliminary mandatory injunction reinstating intervenors and ordering payment of back salaries.
The Court of Appeals (En Banc) found merit in the petition for certiorari, held the trial court committed grave abuse in admitting intervention and granting the injunction, and ordered dismissal of Civil Case No. 210-M-91; it nevertheless directed reinstatement of the private respondents given the recalled decision and lapsed suspension.
Issues
Whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in admitting intervention and issuing a preliminary mandatory injunction reinstating and ordering back pay for intervenors in Civil Case No. 210-M-91.
Whether Private Respondents-Intervenors are entitled to reinstatement given Director Reyes's recall of Case No. DECSRO-III-91-001 and the lapse of the one-year suspension in Case No. DECSRO-III-91-002.
Ruling
The petition for certiorari is granted; the trial court's order of 29 October 1991 in Civil Case No. 210-M-91 is set aside and the respondent judge is directed to dismiss said case.
Despite dismissal of Civil Case No. 210-M-91, petitioners are ordered to reinstate Private Respondents-Intervenors who are respondents in DECSRO-III-91-001 or DECSRO-III-91-002, considering Director Reyes's actions and observations in the resolution.
The petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus is dismissed as to other aspects and the case is remanded to the respondent Regional Trial Judge for further proceedings consistent with the Resolution.
Keywords
G.R. No. 102836, special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, grave abuse of discretion, writ of preliminary mandatory injunction, reinstatement, back salaries, temporary restraining order, administrative complaints, immediate dismissal from the service, suspension from the service, motion for reconsideration, P.D. No. 807, as amended, G.R. No. 100206, Civil Service Commission, motion to dismiss, Petition in Intervention, null and void