FILOMENA R. MANCITA, PETITIONER, VS. HON. CEFERINO P. BARCINAS, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF CAMARINES SUR, BRANCH 31, 5TH JUDICIAL REGION, PILI, …

This is a petition for certiorari with prayer for the
issuance of a temporary restraining order, to annul and set aside the orders of
the respondent Judge dated 8 November 1990, 25 February 1991 and 8 April 1991
in Civil Case No. P-1781 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Pili, Camarines
Sur, and to enjoin the respondent Judge from further proceeding with the said
civil case.

As prayed for by petitioner, this Court issued on 9 May 1991 a temporary restraining order
“effective immediately and continuing until further orders from the Court,
ordering respondent Judge Ceferino P. Barcinas, Regional Trial Court of
Camarines Sur, Branch 31 at Pili to CEASE and DESIST from further proceeding
with Civil Case No. P-1781, entitled “Prescilla B. Nacario vs. The Civil
Service Commission, et. al.”^[1]

The antecedents are as follows:

On 1 August 1980, the petitioner Filomena R. Mancita was appointed to the position of
Municipal Development Coordinator (MDC), Municipality of Pili, Camarines Sur,
on a permanent status.

While petitioner was serving the Municipal Government of Pili,
Camarines Sur as MDC, Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, otherwise known as the
“Local Government Code,” took effect on 14 March 1983. The Code enumerates the officials and
offices common to all municipalities. Among said officials is the Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator (MPDC).^[2]

On 28 March 1983, the Sangguniang Bayan of Pili passed Resolution
No. 38^[3]
creating and organizing the Office of the Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator.

On 1 January 1985, the Reorganization Plan of the Municipality of
Pili was approved by the Joint Commission on Local Government Personnel
Administration (JELGPA).^[4]

In a letter^[5] dated
17 June 1985, Anastacio M. Prila, then Municipal Mayor of Pili, informed the
petitioner of the approval of the Reorganization Plan of the Municipality of
Pili; that her position of Municipal Development Coordinator was abolished; and
with the abolition of the said position, her services as such official are terminated at the close of office hours on
30 June 1985.

On 30 June 1985, Anastacio M. Prila, Municipal Mayor of Pili,
appointed private respondent Prescilla B. Nacario as Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator effective 1
July 1985.^[6]

Petitioner appealed her separation from the service to the Merit
Systems Protection Board (MSPB), docketed therein as MSPB Case No. 248. On 20 June 1989, the MSPB rendered a
decision,^[7]
finding the petitioner’s appeal meritorious and directing that she be
reinstated to her former or equivalent position with payment of back salaries
from the date of her illegal separation from the service.

The Municipal Government of Pili moved for reconside­ration of
the decision of 20 June 1989 but its motion was denied on 13 December 1989.^[8]

On appeal by the Municipality of Pili, the Civil Service
Commission, in its Resolution No. 90-657^[9] dated
16 July 1990 affirmed the decision of the MSPB.

On 15 October 1990, Mayor Delfin N. Divinagracia, Jr., who had
succeeded Mayor Anastacio M. Prila, informed private respondent Nacario that
her services as MPDC would be terminated effective 16 November 1990 to pave the
way for the re­instatement of petitioner.^[10] On
the same date, Mayor Divinagracia also notified petitioner of her reinstatement
to her former position effective 16 November 1990.^[11]

On motion of the petitioner, the Civil Service Commission
promulgated an order^[12]
dated 9 November 1990 directing the immediate implementation of CSC Resolution
No. 90-657 dated 16 July 1990 and the MSPB decision dated 20 June 1989 and
Resolution dated 13 December 1989.

Meanwhile, on 8 November 1990, private respondent Nacario filed
with the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Camarines Sur, Branch 31, a petition for
declaratory relief and prohibition with preliminary injunction (Civil Case No.
P-1781) against the CSC represented by its Chairman Patricia A. Sto. Tomas,
Mayor Delfin N. Divinagracia, Jr., Elium Banda, Regional Director of Region V
of the CSC and herein petitioner Filomena R. Mancita,^[13]
praying that:

“1. Pending hearing of
this suit, a restrain­ing order be issued by this Honorable Court restraining
respondent Honorable Delfin N. Divinagracia, Jr. from implementing his commu­nication
terminating the services of herein petitioner and directing the reinstatement
of respondent Felomina R. Mancita; and likewise, restraining the latter from
assuming/occupying petitioner’s positions as Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator;

2. That likewise, pending
trial on the merits, a preliminary injunction be issued against said
respondents in order to preserve the status quo;

3. That an Order be issued
declaring the Resolution of the Merit Systems Board of the respondent Civil
Service Commission and the latter’s Resolution No. 90-657 as without force and
legal effect, null and void and contrary to law and constitutional right of the
petitioner to security of tenure;

4. That after trial, making
the injunction permanent;

5. Petitioner prays for
such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises.”^[14]

As prayed for by the petitioner (now private respondent Nacario),
the respondent Judge issued on the same day a temporary restraining order and set the hearing of the
application for a writ of preliminary injunction on 22 November 1990.^[15]

In due time, the petitioner filed her answer with a motion to
dismiss the petition on the ground that the court a quo has no jurisdiction to rule, pass upon or review a final
judgment, order or decision of the Civil Service Commission, a constitutional
body.^[16]
Mayor Divinagracia also filed his answer^[17] and,
thereafter, a manifes­tation^[18]
alleging that “he is adopting” petitioner’s motion to dismiss as
incorporated in her answer.

On 25 February 1991, respondent Judge issued an order^[19]
denying the motion to dismiss. The
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration^[20] was
also denied by respondent Judge in his order^[21] dated
8 April 1991.

Petitioner is now before this Court, contending that the
questioned orders of respondent Judge are null and void for having been issued
without or in excess of jurisdiction.

The petition is meritorious.

In Lopez, Jr. vs. The Civil Service Commission, et. al.,^[22]
this Court held that -?

“x x x, no appeal lies from the decision of the Civil Service
Commission, and that parties aggrieved thereby may proceed to this Court alone
on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, within thirty
days from receipt of a copy thereof, pursuant to Section 7, Article IX, of the
Constitution. We quote:

‘SEC. 7. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each
Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the
aggrieved party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.’

“x x x, the Civil Service Commission, under the Constitution,
is the single arbiter of all contests relating to the civil service and as
such, its judgments are unappealable and subject only to this Court’s certiorari
jurisdiction.”

Since the decision, order, or ruling of the Civil Service
Commission is subject to review only by this Court on certiorari under
Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, the Regional Trial Court of Pili, Branch 31,
Camarines Sur, has no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. P-1781, an action which
seeks a review of a decision of the Civil Service Commission.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED, and the questioned
orders dated 8 November 1990, 23 February 1991 and 8 April 1991 of the
respondent Judge are hereby ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The temporary restraining order heretofore issued by the Court is
hereby made PERMANENT. Costs against
the private respondent.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J.,
Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Bidin, Grino-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and
Campos, Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 129

^[2]
Book II, Title II, Chapter 3, Article Eight, Section 161, Local Government Code

^[3]
Rollo, p. 29

^[4]
Ibid., pp. 55, 192, 207

^[5]
Ibid., p. 39

^[6]
Ibid., p. 40

^[7]
Ibid., p. 53

^[8]
Ibid., p. 63

^[9]
Ibid., p. 77

^[10]
Ibid., p. 85

^[11]
Ibid., p. 86

^[12]
Ibid., p. 83

^[13]
Ibid., p. 87

^[14]
Ibid., pp. 90-91

^[15]
Ibid., p. 92

^[16]
Ibid., p. 93

^[17]
Ibid., p. 105

^[18]
Ibid., p. 110

^[19]
Ibid., p. 111

^[20]
Ibid., p. 115

^[21]
Ibid., p. 127

^[22]
G.R. No. 87119, 16 April 1991, 195 SCRA 777, 780, citing Dario vs.
Mison, 176 SCRA 84