Facts:
The case is Miguel M. Llamzon v. Alma Florence Logronio, et al., G.R. No. 167745, June 26, 2007, Supreme Court Second Division, Tinga, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner
Miguel M. Llamzon, an Enterprise Service Officer III at the Industrial Relations Unit, Bataan Economic Zone, was administratively charged (Administrative Case No. 2002-1) with dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the service for allegedly billing overtime fees after PEZA had discontinued such billing. The PEZA Central Board of Inquiry, Investigation and Discipline (
PEZA-CBIID) conducted the investigation after the Civil Service Commission transfer request was denied; the NBI had already opined that the signatures on the billings were those of petitioner.
On September 17, 2002, petitioner filed a civil complaint for damages in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4, Balanga, Bataan, naming as respondents
Alma Florence Logronio, Nestor Hun Nadal, Nicanor Olivar (PEZA‑CBIID members), PEZA Special Prosecutor
Norma Cajulis, and PEZA Director General
Lilia de Lima, and prayed for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction to stop the administrative prosecution. Judge Benjamin T. Vianzon granted an ex parte TRO effective for twenty (20) days and set a preliminary‑injunction hearing. Respondents moved to lift the TRO; that motion was denied.
Respondents filed administrative complaints against Judge Vianzon and sought his inhibition; an inhibition order was issued on October 21, 2002. Subsequent procedural maneuvering followed: petitioner moved to maintain the status quo and Judge Vianzon, after a November 15, 2002 order recalling his inhibition, issued an order dated December 2, 2002 directing maintenance of the “existing status quo” restraining respondents from continuing the administrative hearing; on December 11, 2002 Judge Vianzon denied respondents’ motion to dismiss. Respondents elevated various orders of Judge Vianzon to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari alleging grave abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. SP No. 74874 (Decision promulgated June 10, 2004; Resolution April 7, 2005 denying reconsideration) annulled and set aside the December 2, 2002 status quo order for violating procedural rules on TROs but dismissed the challenge to the December 11, 2002 order denying the motion to dismiss. Petitioner sought relief from the Supreme Court b...
(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did Judge Vianzon commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing and extending the TRO/status quo order in violation of the Rules of Court and applicable administrative circulars?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in entertaining respondents’ petition despite alleged procedural defects (absence of certified copies, defective certificate against forum shopping, lack of motion for reconsideratio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: