ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 16 2005 .

G.R. No. 166495 ( Roque C. Facura and Eduardo F. Tuason vs. Court of Appeals, Rodolfo S. de Jesus, and Edelwina DG. Parungao.)

Acting on private respondent Rodolfo S. de Jesus' Urgent Omnibus Motion to Issue Injunctive Writ or Status Order and Implead Local Water Utilities Administration dated 24 October 2005, praying that: (a) a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction or status quo order be issued directing the Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) and the Office of the Ombudsman, their agents and assigns, to restore the status quo existing at the time of the filing of the petition docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 84902 by reinstating said private respondent to his position as Deputy Administrator for Administrative Services; and (b) the LWUA, as represented by its Administrator, be impleaded as nominal party, the Court RESOLVED to DENY the motion.

This Court has no jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction or status quo order prayed for since the present petition for certiorari assails only the Court of Appeals' resolution in CA-G.R. No. 84902 dated 22 September 2004 which dissolved the temporary restraining order earlier granted and ordered the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction in favor of private respondents so that the latter were reinstated to their former positions pending the resolution of the petition for review in CA-G.R. SP No. 84902. The case at bar is directed against an interlocutory order and seeks to resolve only the issue of whether or not the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in enjoining the implementation of the order of dismissal of private respondents. Respondent de Jesus, in filing the motion, is actually seeking a review of the decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 84902 dated 26 May 2005 , which has not been elevated to this Court for review. Per report of the Clerk of Court, CA-G.R. SP No. 84902 filed before the Court of Appeals has pending incidents for resolution, i.e., a motion for partial reconsideration, a motion for reconsideration, and a comment thereto. Such being the case, private respondent should await the resolution of the pending incidents in that case and file the proper petition for review.

Nazario, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE