DIGEST/KRIZABEL MARTINEZ/DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VS. HON. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ, JR

 

 G.R. No. 209331, August 24, 2015

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE VS. HON. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ, JR., 

FACTS

The case stemmed from the publication of EO 140 which created the Customs Policy Research Office (CPRO) in the Department of Finance. With regard to the newly published EO, Bureau of Customs (BOC) Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon issued Customs Personnel Order No. B-189-2013 (CPO 189-2013) detailing 27 BOC personnel holding the positions of Collector of Customs V and VI, including respondents in this case, to CPRO "effective immediately and valid until sooner revoked."

Respondents, then, filed an action for Declaratory Relief with Application for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the RTC of Manila. Executive Judge Dela Cruz issued a TRO for a period of 72 hours enjoining petitioners or any person acting for and in their behalf from implementing CPO 189-2013.

The 72-hour TRO was extended for 20 days by Judge Laron-Cacanindin. She, then, set the hearing for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, with prayer for the issuance of a TRO or a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. Petitioners alleged that the case involves personnel action affecting public officers which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC. They also alleged that CPO 189-2013 is an internal personnel order with an application that is limited to and only within BOC and as such, it cannot be the subject of an action for declaratory relief.

Respondents raised the issue of the validity and constitutionality of CPO 189-2013, and thus, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the CSC. Their application for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was denied by Judge Laron-Cacanindin.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the action for declaratory relief filed by respondents

 

RULING

Yes. RTC has jurisdiction over the action for declaratory relief filed by respondents.

The rule under the Omnibus Rules is that disciplinary cases and cases involving personnel actions, including "appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail, reassignment, demotion, and separation," are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC.

Respondents alleged that their detail was carried out in bad faith and was meant to remove them from their permanent positions in the BOC. The action appears to be a personnel action under the jurisdiction of the CSC. However, respondents further assailed the validity and constitutionality of CPO 189-2013. When respondents raised such issues, it took the case beyond the scope of the CSC's jurisdiction because the matter is no longer limited to personnel action. Thus, the RTC did not abuse its discretion in taking cognizance of the action.