Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > October 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-30774 October 31, 1969 - TEODORA B. DE LA CRUZ v. TEODULO G. GABOR, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-30774. October 31, 1969.]

TEODORA B. DE LA CRUZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TEODULO G. GABOR, ROSENDO M. HERNANDEZ, HON. SEC. OF EDUCATION, HON. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE and EVANGELINE ESPINOSA, Respondents-Appellees.

Sinforoso B. Anota for Petitioner-Appellant.

Segundo M. Zosa for Respondent-Appellee Teodulo G. Gabor.

Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo, Assistant Solicitor General Frine’ C . Zaballero and Solicitor Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. for Respondents-Appellees Secretary of Education, Et. Al.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; COURTS OF FIRST INSTANCE; JURISDICTION; TERRITORIAL LIMITS NOT ENLARGED BY CONCURRENT JURISDICTION WITH SUPREME COURT. — The provision of Sec. 17, paragraph I of the Judiciary Act which provides that the Supreme Court shall exercise original and concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of First Instance in the issuance of writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus does not enlarge the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance as limited by Sec. 44 (h) of the same law to their respective provinces and districts.

2. ID.; PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE; MOTION TO DISMISS; LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER SOME DEFENDANTS NOT A GROUND TO DISMISS. — While the Court of First Instance of Leyte has no jurisdiction to issue the preliminary mandatory injunction prayed for in a complaint for damages and reinstatement to the position of classroom teacher against the Secretary of Education and the Commissioner of Civil Service whose official residences are in Manila, the proper action of the lower court should not have been the dismissal of the complaint but the issuance of an order for its amendment so as to exclude the national officials aforementioned and proceed to hearing the case on the merits against the remaining defendants.

3. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES BEFORE COURT SUIT; NO SUCH FAILURE TO EXHAUST SUCH REMEDIES IN INSTANT CASE. — Where the record amply demonstrates that petitioner had repeatedly, but in vain, sought remedy from the administrative officials of the Department of Education, the dismissal of her complaint for damages and reinstatement to her former position, was not proper. Considering the limitation of one year from ouster prescribed for the initiation of quo warranto proceedings, she could not be expected to do more.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Certified to Us by the Court of Appeals is this appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Leyte (Tacloban City Branch), in its Civil Case No. 3473, dismissing without costs a petition for mandamus and quo warranto with preliminary injunction and damages.

Appellant Teodora B. de la Cruz filed the original petition seeking reinstatement to the position of classroom teacher of Cosmetology I and II, formerly held by her for fifteen years in the Leyte Regional School of Arts and Trades under a provisional appointment (although she was a civil service eligible), and of which she was allegedly deprived through the bad faith and fraudulent machinations of the principal (one Hernandez, since deceased) and Superintendent, Teodulo G. Gabor, of the aforesaid Institute, who, by representing that petitioner was teaching special, not regular, courses, caused the Secretary of Education to recommend the abolition of the special course and the termination of petitioner’s services to the Bureau of Civil Service, effective 30 March 1963, as was done. She further averred that in her stead was assigned one Miss Espinosa, who "had no civil service eligibility, no teaching experience and a new comer." Her petitions for reconsideration having been fruitless, appellant instituted the action against Hernandez, Gabor, Espinosa, the Secretary of Education, the Civil Service Commissioner, and the Director of the Bureau of Vocational Education.

The court below at first denied respondent’s motion to dismiss, and after answer set the case for pre-trial. Subsequently, upon reiteration of the motion for dismissal of respondents, the court, by order of 21 May 1966, dismissed the petition on two grounds:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(a) Lack of jurisdiction over respondents Secretary of Education, Director of Vocational Education and Commissioner of Civil Service, "for the writ of certiorari and injunction does not lie against them as they are holding office in Manila, outside the jurisdiction of this Court, pursuant to Section 44 (h) of the Judiciary Act (Republic Act No. 296)" and decisions of the Supreme Court;

(b) As to the other respondents, "on the ground that the petitioner has not exhausted all the remedies afforded by law, after her ouster from office on 30 March 1963, before filing the present extraordinary legal remedy at bar in court."cralaw virtua1aw library

Unable to secure reconsideration, petitioner appealed.

The Court of First Instance correctly stated the law to be that it had no jurisdiction to issue the preliminary mandatory injunction prayed for in the complaint against the national officials stationed outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Section 44(h) of the Judiciary Act and the constant jurisprudence of this Supreme Court are clear to that effect (see Palanan Lumber and Plywood Co. v. Judge Arranz, L-27106, 20 March 1968, and cases therein cited); and, contrary to appellant’s view, section 17, paragraph 1, of the Judiciary Act, that defines the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in concurrence with that of the courts of first instance, in no way enlarges the power of the latter beyond the territorial limits set by Section 44(h).

However, that the Secretary of Education and the Commissioner of Civil Service (whose official residences are in Manila) should not be restrainable by the Court of First Instance of Leyte does not impede the latter tribunal from taking cognizance of the appellant’s action for reinstatement and damages against Superintendent Gabor, school principal Hernandez, and teacher Evangeline Espinosa, who are stationed in Leyte province The proper action should have been to order the amendment of the complaint to exclude the national officials aforementioned and proceed to a hearing on the merits of the case against the remaining defendants. Analysis of the allegations of the complaint, specially paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7-a thereof, shows that the main cause of action was based on an alleged fraudulent and illegal ouster of petitioner from her position as regular teacher in the faculty of the Leyte Regional School of Arts and Trades, brought about by the allegedly deceptive machinations of Gabor and Hernandez, and on petitioner’s improper substitution by teacher Espinosa, who, according to the complaint, is neither eligible nor qualified for the post. If it be proved that Gabor and Hernandez deceived the higher Government officials into dismissing petitioner, her original position never became really vacant, and, therefore, Espinosa could not be lawfully appointed thereto.

The lower court’s second ground for dismissal, to wit, that complainant had not exhausted her administrative remedies, is not supported by the record either. Pages 144 to 161 of the Court of First Instance record amply demonstrate that petitioner De la Cruz repeatedly, but in vain, sought remedy from the administrative officials of the Department of Education. Considering the limitation of one year from ouster prescribed for the initiation of quo warranto proceedings 1 (and hers was an action of this nature), we are of the opinion that she could not be expected to do more.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal complained of is reversed and set aside, and the records ordered remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. So ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Rule 67, section 6, Revised Rules of Court.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






October-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-27755 October 4, 1969 - ARSENIO REYES v. LEONARDO MANAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27335 October 28, 1969 - BALTAZAR SALUDARES, ET AL. v. JOSE MARTINEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27412 October 28, 1969 - BUREAU OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18519 October 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MACABATO ALI

  • G.R. No. L-20274 October 30, 1969 - ELOY MIGUEL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21740 October 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO GALLORA

  • G.R. No. L-22245 October 30, 1969 - JUAN PARREÑO v. IRENEO GANANCIAL

  • G.R. No. L-22366 October 30, 1969 - RODOLFO GUERRERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22662 October 30, 1969 - PEDRO C. TIANGCO, ET AL. v. HERCULES IRON MINES DEV., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23694 October 30, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES BRITOS AGLIBUT

  • G.R. No. L-25134 October 30, 1969 - CITY OF BACOLOD v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-26270 October 30, 1969 - BONIFACIA MATEO, ET AL. v. GERVASIO LAGUA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 887 October 31, 1969 - AVELINA C. ARAGON v. ATTY. TOMAS B. MATOL

  • G.R. No. L-19617 October 31, 1969 - U.P. BOARD OF REGENTS, ET AL v. AUDITOR GENERA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22197 October 31, 1969 - GONZALO PUYAT & SONS, INC. v. HON. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-22633 October 31, 1969 - JULIAN B. DACANA v. HON. CARMELINO G. ALVENDIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23069 October 31, 1969 - TEOFILA RAMOS, ET AL v. FELICISIMO RAYMUNDO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23256 October 31, 1969 - JOSE MA. GONZALES v. VICTORY LABOR UNION (VICLU), ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23464 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAVINO DORADO Y ARABACA

  • G.R. No. L-23359 October 31, 1969 - PHIL. IRON MINES, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-23580 October 31, 1969 - BACOLOD-MURCIA PLANTERS’ ASS., INC., ET AL. v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-23733 October 31, 1969 - HERMINIO L. NOCUM v. LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-23833 October 31, 1969 - JOSE GARRIDO v. CAYETANO ENRIQUEZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24735 October 31, 1969 - CONSOLACION P. MANGILA v. HON. JUDGE JOSE T. LANTIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25004 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TEOFILO TALABOC, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-25177 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS LAYSON, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25033 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO PAMITTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25413 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ONOFRE SANTOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25481 October 31, 1969 - GERONIMO CAGUIAT, ET AL v. HON. GUILLERMO E. TORRES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-25659 October 31, 1969 - LUZON SURETY CO., INC. v. JOSEFA AGUIRRE DE GARCIA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26002 October 31, 1969 - ABELARDO BAUTISTA, ET AL v. FEDERICO O. BORROMEO, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26059 October 31, 1969 - DOMINADOR S. JAMILANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27861 October 31, 1969 - PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN v. SECRETARY OF PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28129 October 31, 1969 - ELIAS VALCORZA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-27537-44 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR GARCIA SY

  • G.R. No. L-27401 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIEGO BALONDO

  • G.R. No. L-27419 October 31, 1969 - GUILLERMO F. GARCIA, ET AL v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-27352 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN ABLAZA

  • G.R. No. L-27033 October 31, 1969 - POLYTRADE CORPORATION v. VICTORIANO BLANCO

  • G.R. No. L-26531 October 31, 1969 - PHOENIX ASSURANCE COMPANY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26718 October 31, 1969 - ELITE SHIRT FACTORY, INC. v. HON. W. L. CORNEJO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26775 October 31, 1969 - MAMERTO IRIOLA v. SILVERIO FELICES

  • G.R. No. L-26146 October 31, 1969 - SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26173 October 31, 1969 - OPERATORS, INCORPORATED v. RICARDO CACATIAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26240 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN GONDAYAO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-26244 October 31, 1969 - IN RE: CHAN HO LAY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26382 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODRIGO L. FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. L-26406 October 31, 1969 - AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & EQUIP. CO., INC. v. JOSE B. LINGAD, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24883 October 31, 1969 - MACHUCA TILE CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-26098 October 31, 1969 - JOSE LAUREL, ET AL v. HON. ONOFRE SISON ABALOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-28591 October 31, 1969 - MARIANO RAMIREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-29210 October 31, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE BRAÑA

  • G.R. No. L-30694 October 31, 1969 - STERLING INVESTMENT CORP., ET AL v. HON. V. M. RUIZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-30774 October 31, 1969 - TEODORA B. DE LA CRUZ v. TEODULO G. GABOR, ET AL