No L-30070. August 29 1980.
Main Topic – Rule 58
Frederico Decano was temporarily appointed to the position of janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office in Dagupan City by Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications. The appointment was approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service and Decano served therein for almost four years. In 1966, C. Posadas, as Acting Registrar – Land Transportation Commission (LTC) – Dagupan City , received a telegram from R. Edu, as Acting Commissioner of Land Transportation Commission (LTC), terminating Decano’s services effective as of the close of business on that day.
Decano filed a petition for “Mandamus and Injunction” with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, claiming that the officials of the LTC acted without power and in excess of authority in removing him from the service. He prayed for the annulment of the dismissal order issued. The Court granted the writ of preliminary injunction and ordered the respondents to “to desist and refrain from disturbing, molesting or otherwise ousting the petitioner from his position as janitor and to pay Decano his corresponding salary from the date of notice of said preliminary injunction, until further orders from the Court.
Edu contended that the appointment was temporary and therefore the latter could be ousted from his position at any time with or without cause. He seeks for the reversal of the trial court’s decision, since the petition for mandamus with injunction was filed in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan while he holds office in Quezon City which, he claims, is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the said court.
Whether or not the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan is beyond its territorial jurisdiction by granting petition for “Mandamus and Injunction” enjoining Edu who holds office in Quezon City.
No. Decano seeks primarily the annulment of the dismissal order issued by respondent Edu, mandamus and injunction being then merely corollary remedies to the main relief sought, and what is prayed to be enjoined, as in fact the trial court did enjoin by preliminary injunction, is the implementation of the termination order against the petitioner. The injunction in question, consequently, must be taken only to restrain the implementation of respondent Edu’s order by his co-respondent whose official station at Dagupan City is within the territorial boundaries of the trial court’s jurisdiction district.
Where the annulment of the dismissal of an employee is the cause of action and mandamus and injunction from mere corollary remedies thereto, a Court of First Instance of Pangasinan has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and injunction against an officer of the Land Transportation Commission even if the latter holds office in Quezon City.
Disclaimer: This is my personal case digest. Use it at own risk. I do hope it helps!
If you want to view all of my case digests, you can find it here.