Case Digest (G.R. No. 181643)
Facts:
This is Michelle I. Pineda v. Court of Appeals (Former Ninth Division) and the Department of Education, represented by Assistant Secretary Camilo Miguel M. Montesa, G.R. No. 181643, November 17, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Michelle I. Pineda entered into a five-year Memorandum of Agreement dated May 14, 2004 (May‑MOA) with Lakandula High School (LHS), represented by Principal Dr. Alice B. Blas, to lease and operate the school canteen for P20,000.00 monthly plus P4,000.00 for the feeding program; she then renovated and equipped the canteen. Faculty and personnel questioned the May‑MOA, and on August 14, 2004 an August‑MOA was executed between Pineda and Dr. Blas adopting the standard form under Department Order No. 95, s. 1998 for turnover of school canteens to teachers’ cooperatives.
Complaints prompted Division officials to recommend elevation to the DepEd central office. On February 11, 2005, Undersecretary Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon declared the August‑MOA “null and void ab initio,” ordered its cancellation, and directed that canteen management revert to the Home Economics Department; Pineda was ordered to cease managing the canteen. Pineda filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for TRO/writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 153, Pasig City. On March 14, 2005, the RTC issued a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction enjoining enforcement of Usec. Gascon’s decision; a motion to dismiss by DepEd was denied by the RTC on June 7, 2005.
DepEd, represented by Assistant Secretary Camilo Miguel M. Montesa, filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC’s denial of the motion to dismiss but reversed the RTC’s March 14, 2005 order granting the writ, reasoning that DepEd’s order had already been partially implemented (the status quo at filing), the MOA was invalid under Dep...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals gravely abuse its discretion in entertaining DepEd’s petition filed by Assistant Secretary Camilo Miguel M. Montesa for lack of locus standi?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in entertaining DepEd’s certiorari petition despite DepEd’s failure to file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC orders (i.e., was filing a motion for reconsideration a jurisdictional prerequisite here)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the RTC’s...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)