Case Digest (G.R. No. 140917)
Facts:
Menelieto A. Olanda v. Leonardo G. Bugayong, et al., G.R. No. 140917, October 10, 2003, Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Menelieto A. Olanda, then Dean of the College of Marine Engineering and former PMMA Complex Project Officer, and eleven other PMMA officers and employees filed a verified complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman on March 17, 1998, accusing Leonardo G. Bugayong, President of the Philippine Merchant Marine Academy (PMMA), of graft under Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 for entering into an allegedly grossly disadvantageous contract with PNCC. On March 22, 1998, petitioner was interviewed on radio about that complaint.
Respondent Bugayong issued memoranda (March 25 and March 27, 1998) requiring petitioner to explain under oath why disciplinary action should not be taken for publicly discussing the PMMA–PNCC Memorandum of Agreement. Respondent Pedro S. Dulay, Jr., PMMA chief security officer, wrote on March 26, 1998 asking that a board of investigators be formed. By Special Order of March 27, 1998 petitioner was relieved as Dean and reassigned; Engr. Michael Dumangeng was designated Acting Dean. Bugayong created a board of investigation by Special Order of April 6, 1998; the board recommended discipline, and on August 21, 1998 Bugayong suspended petitioner for three months for violations of the PMMA Faculty Handbook and civil service rules.
Petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto, mandamus and prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and damages before Branch 70 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Iba, Zambales (Sp. Civil Action No. RTC-28-I) on October 27, 1998, contending there was no valid cause to deprive him of his deanship and that Dumangeng was usurping his position. On motion of respondents, the RTC dismissed the petition by Order of June 8, 1999, on the ground that petitioner had not alleged exhaustion of administrative remedies. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the RTC in an order of November 12, 1999.
Petitioner sought relief from the Court by a pe...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court have jurisdiction to entertain petitioner’s petition challenging his relief as Dean and his reassignment?
- Was dismissal of the petition by the RTC proper on the ground that petitioner failed to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies?
- Do petitioner’s suspension and reassignment constitute "personnel actions" falling within the exclusive jurisdictio...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)