G.R. No. 168350 - Cendana vs. Avila

On January 7, 2003, respondent Cirilo A. Avila joined the Land Transportation Office (LTO) as Director II of its Law Enforcement Service and was conferred a Certificate of Career Service Executive Eligibility by the Civil Service Commission.
On January 11, 2005, petitioner Percival A. CendaAa was appointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the same position, took his oath of office, and assumed the related duties.

Following CendaAa’s appointment, the LTO issued an order directing Avila to formally turn over his post to CendaAa.
A memorandum announcing the new appointment was circulated among all LTO officials.

Avila, aggrieved by the turnover order, filed a petition for quo warranto at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 222.
The RTC granted a writ of preliminary injunction restraining CendaAa and his representatives from assuming or performing the functions as Director II for the Law Enforcement Service until further orders, subject to the filing of a bond of P500,000.00.

In response, CendaAa filed a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on procedural grounds, noting deficiencies including:

Failure to state the actual addresses of the parties.
Failure to manifest willingness to post a bond in the prayer for preliminary relief.
Omission of filing a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order.

CendaAa subsequently filed the instant petition for review on certiorari challenging the dismissal.
He argued that:

The omission of actual addresses was immaterial as notice to his counsel was deemed sufficient.
The failure to manifest willingness to post a bond should not affect the merits of the petition.
The petition should be decided on its merits rather than on technical non-compliance, asserting the RTC Order was a patent nullity.

The actual addresses of the parties are mandatory in all initiatory pleadings to establish venue and jurisdiction.
CendaAa’s petition was frivolous and intended merely to delay proceedings.
The petition failed to demonstrate the alleged patent nullity of the RTC Order.

Whether the omission of the actual addresses of the parties in the petition for certiorari is a sufficient ground for dismissal under the mandatory procedural requirements.
Whether the failure to manifest willingness to post a bond in the petition for a writ of preliminary injunction is a fatal defect in the petition, given that such bond requirement is primarily for the provisional relief phase.
Whether the failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order prior to filing the petition for certiorari constitutes a jurisdictional defect.
Whether technical deficiencies should preclude a determination on the merits, particularly in light of the petitioner's claim regarding the patent nullity of the RTC Order.