Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    Decano V Edu

    Uploaded by

    Colee Stifler
    Federico Decano was appointed as a janitor by the Undersecretary of Public Works. After nearly 4 years of service, he was terminated by Romeo Edu via telegram. Decano filed a petition for mandamus and injunction with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan, claiming his removal was unlawful. The CFI issued a preliminary injunction and found the removal null and void. Respondents argued the CFI lacked jurisdiction as Edu's office was in Quezon City. However, the court held the CFI had jurisdiction because the termination order was being implemented in Dagupan City, within its territorial jurisdiction, and Edu was joined as a respondent to determine the legality of his

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Decano V Edu

    Uploaded by

    Colee Stifler
    59 views2 pages
    Federico Decano was appointed as a janitor by the Undersecretary of Public Works. After nearly 4 years of service, he was terminated by Romeo Edu via telegram. Decano filed a petition for mandamus and injunction with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan, claiming his removal was unlawful. The CFI issued a preliminary injunction and found the removal null and void. Respondents argued the CFI lacked jurisdiction as Edu's office was in Quezon City. However, the court held the CFI had jurisdiction because the termination order was being implemented in Dagupan City, within its territorial jurisdiction, and Edu was joined as a respondent to determine the legality of his

    Original Description:

    Civ Pro Preliminary Injucnction

    Original Title

    Decano v Edu

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Federico Decano was appointed as a janitor by the Undersecretary of Public Works. After nearly 4 years of service, he was terminated by Romeo Edu via telegram. Decano filed a petition for mandamus and injunction with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan, claiming his removal was unlawful. The CFI issued a preliminary injunction and found the removal null and void. Respondents argued the CFI lacked jurisdiction as Edu's office was in Quezon City. However, the court held the CFI had jurisdiction because the termination order was being implemented in Dagupan City, within its territorial jurisdiction, and Edu was joined as a respondent to determine the legality of his

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    Decano V Edu

    Uploaded by

    Colee Stifler
    Federico Decano was appointed as a janitor by the Undersecretary of Public Works. After nearly 4 years of service, he was terminated by Romeo Edu via telegram. Decano filed a petition for mandamus and injunction with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan, claiming his removal was unlawful. The CFI issued a preliminary injunction and found the removal null and void. Respondents argued the CFI lacked jurisdiction as Edu's office was in Quezon City. However, the court held the CFI had jurisdiction because the termination order was being implemented in Dagupan City, within its territorial jurisdiction, and Edu was joined as a respondent to determine the legality of his

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    DECANO V EDU

    FACTS:
    1. The then Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications
    issued to Federico Decano, a temporary appointment to the
    position of janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office.
    2. The appointment was approved by the CSC. Federico assumed
    office for almost 4 years .
    3. Cipriano Posadas, as Acting Registrar of the Land Transportation
    Commission received a telegram from Romeo Edu, in his capacity
    as Acting Commissioner of LTC terminating Decanos services
    effective as of the close of business that day.
    4. Consequently, Decano filed to the CFI a petition for Mandamus
    and Injunction claiming that the aforementioned officials acted
    without power and in excess of their authority in removing him
    from service. He prayed to declare the order of removal null and
    void.
    5. The writ of preliminary injunction was issued by CFI commanding
    the officials to desist from disturbing Decano from his position
    and to pay Decano his corresponding salary.
    6. CFIs DECISION:
    Decanos appointment was temporary and as such he can
    be ousted from his position at any time with or without
    cause.
    Decanos removal was null and void upon the ground that
    under the law respondent Commission of LTC was not the
    appointing authority insofar as the position of Decano and
    all other minor positions were concerned and thus lacking
    power of appointment, Edu had neither the power of
    removal.
    7. Hence, this petition.
    In seeking reversal of the CFIs decision, respondents
    make capital of the fact that the petition for mandamus
    with injunction was filed with the CFI of Pangasinan while
    Edu holds office in QC. It is beyond the territorial
    jurisdiction of CFI of Pangasinan.

    ISSUE: Whether it is within the territorial jurisdiction of CFI of


    Pangasinan to issue the writ of preliminary injunction

    HELD: YES. Since the acts to be restrained were being done in


    Dagupan City, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of CFI
    of Pangasinan, the latter had jurisdiction to restrain said acts
    even if the office of Edu is in Quezon City.
    1. In the case at bar, Decano seeks primarily the annulment of the
    dismissal order issued by 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 Decano.
    The injunction is question consequently, must be taken
    only to restrain the implementation of respondent Edus
    order by his co-respondent whose official station at
    Dagupan City is within the territorial boundaries of the trial
    courts jurisdictional district.
    2. Also, Edu was impleaded as respondent for the determination of
    the main issue involved: The legality of Edus order of dismissal;
    being the pivotal issue to determine the merits of the mandamus
    and injunction aspects of the petition. Edu was joined as
    respondents not for injunction purposes but for the
    determination of the legality of his dismissal order to his co-
    respondent Posadas at Dagupan City to implement the same and
    terminate the services of the petitioner in Dagupan City.
    3. Where the main issue is the correctness of a nationals officials
    decision, the provincial courts have equal jurisdiction with Manila
    courts to review the decision of national officials.
    If it is otherwise, the litigants of limited means would
    practically be denied access to the courts of the localities
    where they reside and where the questioned acts are
    sought to be enforced. This would amount to denial of
    access to the courts and would unnecessarily encumber
    the Manila courts whose dockets are already over-
    burdened.

    You might also like