G.R. No. 179492 - Republic vs. Bayao

Petitioner: The Department of Agriculture-Regional Field Unit XII (DA-RFU XII), a government office mandated to implement the Department of Agriculture’s policies within its regional jurisdiction.
Respondents: Officials and employees of DA-RFU XII, including Abdulwahab A. Bayao, Osmeaa I. Montaaer, Rakma B. Buisan, Helen M. Alvares, Neila P. Limba, Elizabeth B. Pusta, Anna Mae A. Sideno, Udtog B. Tabong, John S. Kamenza, Delia R. Subaldo, Dayang W. Macmod, and Florence S. Tayuan.

On March 30, 2004, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 304 was issued, designating Koronadal City as the regional center for the SOCCSKSARGEN region.
The Order mandated that all national government offices in the SOCCSKSARGEN region transfer their regional seat of operations from Cotabato City to Koronadal City.

On April 1, 2005, a memorandum from DA Undersecretary for Operations directed OIC Abusama M. Alid to effect the transfer of the DA-RFU XII’s administrative, finance, and operations base from Cotabato City to Koronadal City.
A detailed action plan was required, with the intention to begin implementation by April 16, 2005, allowing time during the summer break for affected personnel to make necessary adjustments.
Temporary arrangements were made for office space in the ATI Building in Tantangan and at the Tupi Seed Farm.

On April 22, 2005, a memorandum opposing the transfer was addressed to DA Secretary Arthur Yap, asserting that a pronouncement by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo indicated that the regional seat should remain in Cotabato City.
Respondents contested the transfer citing:

High costs including a proposed expense of over ₱7,200,000.00 for dislocation pay and other incidental expenses.
The alleged availability of a building in Cotabato City adequate for housing staff.
Disadvantages arising from high rental costs in Koronadal City and sub-standard construction issues on the third floor of the ATI Building.

On May 17, 2005, OIC Abusama M. Alid ordered the transfer to specific sites, prompting respondents to file a Complaint for Injunction on May 18, 2005.
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 14 of Cotabato City, granted a preliminary injunction on October 9, 2006, effectively enjoining the transfer.
Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on December 17, 2006, arguing that the injunction interfered with the executive’s discretion and was contrary to established Supreme Court precedents.

The Court of Appeals, in its Resolution dated March 21, 2007, dismissed the Petition for Certiorari on the ground that petitioner failed to file a Motion for Reconsideration of the trial court’s preliminary injunction.
A subsequent Resolution dated August 16, 2007, denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Petitioner then elevated these procedural resolutions via a Petition under Rule 45, contending the existence of well-defined exceptions to the mandatory motion requirement, as the issues had already been thoroughly litigated in the lower courts.

Whether a Petition under Rule 45 is the proper remedy to assail the disputed Court of Appeals Resolutions dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and denying the Motion for Reconsideration.

Whether the exceptions to requiring a Motion for Reconsideration prior to filing a Petition under Rule 65 are applicable in this case, given that the same issues had been already raised and adjudicated.
Whether petitioner’s failure to file a Motion for Reconsideration is fatal to its appeal.

Whether the issuance by the Regional Trial Court of a preliminary injunction against the transfer constitutes an impermissible interference with the executive's discretionary power concerning office transfers.
Whether the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into issues concerning the wisdom or expediency of the transfer, which are inherently executive in nature.

Whether petitioner’s filing of the Petition under Rule 45 should be allowed to review both the procedural omission (i.e. non-filing of a Motion for Reconsideration) and the substantive merits of the case.
Whether the lower courts’ rulings were in conformity with the Supreme Court precedent in DENR v. DENR Region 12 Employees reinforcing the separation of powers.