Case Digest (G.R. No. L-39380)
Facts:
Lualhati L. Lina, G.R. No. L-39380, April 14, 1978, the Supreme Court En Banc, Barredo, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Lualhati L. Lina sought certiorari and mandamus to annul two successive orders of dismissal issued by respondent Judge Amante P. Purisima, presiding judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, and to compel trial on the merits against respondents Philippine Veterans Bank and its president Esteban Cabanos.
Petitioner originally filed Special Civil Action No. 94986 for mandamus to compel reinstatement and damages after she was dismissed from her position in the Philippine Veterans Bank. On August 14, 1974 the trial court dismissed the petition for insufficiency of form and substance, noting that the petition alleged merely a legal conclusion of "grave abuse of discretion" by respondent Cabanos, omitted annexes (including the Office of the President indorsement), and failed to plead the ultimate facts showing entitlement to the office.
Petitioner filed an amended petition. On September 3, 1974 the trial court again dismissed, this time adding that the removal was pursuant to Letters of Instruction issued under Proclamation No. 1081 and that General Order No. 3 (issued September 22, 1972) barred judicial review of acts issued pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081; hence the relief sought was beyond the court’s power.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for certiorari and mandamus. After submission, respondents manifested that by Administrative Order No. 6 (dated May 12, 1975) they had reinstated petitioner effective upon assumption of duty, would pay back salaries and other emoluments from October 16, 1972, and would reimburse her litigation expenses and attorney’s fees; respondents later reiterated this in a Manifestation dated May 22, 1975 and in an additional Manifestation and Comment dated November 12, 1976. Petitioner, however, refused to return to work and reserved her claim for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Both parties then urged the Supreme Court to resolve the remaining issues without remand.
The Supreme Court found the trial court’s invocation of General Order No. 3 to be an unconstitutional abdication of judicial power, accepted that the parties had placed all material ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err in dismissing petitioner’s amended petition on the ground that General Order No. 3 ousted the courts of jurisdiction over acts done pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081?
- May the Supreme Court, without remanding the case to the court of origin, resolve the merits where the facts are undisputed and the parties so request?
- Is petitioner entitled to reinstatement, back salaries, reimbursement of expenses, moral and ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)