Title
Mateo vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 113219
Decision Date
Aug 14, 1995
MOWAD Board dismissed GM Sta. Maria; RTC ruled no jurisdiction, CSC has authority over quasi-public corporation employees' disciplinary actions.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 113219)

Events Leading to the Case

On December 13, 1992, following a complaint from several employees of MOWAD, the board conducted an investigation that led to Edgar Sta. Maria being placed under preventive suspension. Maximo San Diego was appointed as the Acting General Manager during this period. Subsequently, Sta. Maria was formally dismissed on January 7, 1993. Sta. Maria contested his dismissal by filing a Special Civil Action for Quo Warranto and Mandamus, with a request for a preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Rizal on January 18, 1993, arguing that his removal was contrary to due process.

Claims, Arguments, and Legal Proceedings

In his complaint, Sta. Maria presented three causes of action. The first charge contended a violation of his security of tenure as General Manager and claimed that his removal, which allegedly occurred through unlawful actions of the board, was executed without due process. The second cause of action highlighted a conspiracy among the petitioners to unlawfully terminate his services. The third asserted his right to be restored to his position and for the respondents to be restrained from preventing him from performing his duties.

In response, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the Regional Trial Court lacked jurisdiction over disciplinary actions affecting government employees, which fall under the exclusive purview of the Civil Service Commission. Additionally, they argued that the remedy sought by Sta. Maria was not appropriate under the circumstances.

Court's Rulings and Appellate Proceedings

On April 26, 1993, the trial court, presided by Judge Arturo Marave, denied the petitioners' motion to dismiss, just as it did on a motion for reconsideration filed subsequently. The petitioners subsequently elevated the issue to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the petition on November 24, 1993, on the grounds of meritlessness, and also denied a motion for reconsideration on January 11, 1994.

Jurisdictional Determination

The central issue of the review was whether the Regional Trial Court had jurisdiction over the dismissal case concerning an employee of a quasi-public corporation. The Supreme Court held that such matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts. The Morong Water District is recognized as a quasi-public corporation created pursu

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.