Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete

Nazareno vs. City of Dumaguete

527 SCRA 509

·       Agustin R. Perdices won over incumbent Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo for the mayoralty post. He was to assume office on June 30, 2001.

·      Before Perdices’ assumption, Remollo made fifteen (15) promotional appointments, and seventy-four (74) original appointments for various positions in the city government.

·       July 2, 2001: Remollo dishonored the appointments made by Remollo.

·       Leah M. Nazareno, et al, filed with the RTC of Dumaguete City a Petition for Mandamus, Injunction and Damages against the City of Dumaguete, represented by Mayor Remollo.

·       Aug. 1, 2001: Director Abucejo of the Civil Service Commission Field Office (CSCFO) invalidated and revoked the questioned appointments as they were issued in violation of the guidelines set forth by the CSC.

·       Aug. 3, 2001: RTC issued a writ of prelim injunction against the City Government pending the final adjudication of the case. The court reversed Director Abucejo’s on the ground that the questioned appointments may only be invalidated by the Regional Office upon recommendation by the CSCFO.

·       City of Dumaguete claimed that Director Abucejo’s decision already became final after petitioner’s failed to move for reconsideration of the same. They moved for the dismissal of the injunction case. RTC denied the motion to dismiss but agreed with the finality of the decision. It permanently lifted the preliminary injunction.

·       Nazareno et al, appealed to the CA. The appeal was denied and dismissed by the court.

ISSUE:

(1)    Whether or not the petition for injunction filed by Nazareno et al. is premature? YES!

HELD/RATIO:

·      Nazareno et al. prematurely filed the injunction because there was still no invalidation of their appointments. The filing was only prompted by Mayor Perdices’ announcement that he was dishonoring the appointments made by former mayor Remollo. The invalidation only took place on August 1, 2001.

·      After the invalidation, they could still file an appeal with the CSC Regional Office. Thus, they had ample administrative remedies under the law to protect their rights but they chose to go straight to the regular courts.

·      Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future rights, and as such, the possibility of irreparable damage without proof of actual existing right is no ground for injunction.

·      The Court refused to rule on the validity of the appointments since it was the subject of a separate petition for review before the Court of Appeals.

·      Thus, it held that there was no need for the separate case of injunction since Nazareno et al. are given by law and related rules adequate remedies to protect their rights and interests.