G.R. No. 139302 ; October 28, 2002
Eduardo P. Corsiga, Former Deputy Administrator, National Irrigation Administration, petitioner, vs. Hon. Quirico G. Defensor, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Iloilo City, and Romeo P. Ortizo, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Romeo P. Ortizo was a Senior Engineer B in the National Irrigation Administration (NIA), Jalaur-Suague River Irrigation System, Region VI. In June 1995, petitioner Eduardo P. Corsiga, then Regional Irrigation Manager of NIA Region VI, issued Regional Office Memorandum (ROM) No. 52, reassigning private respondent to the Aganan-Sta. Barbara River Irrigation System. Private respondent requested exemption, citing an NIA Memorandum Circular stating that the policy of rotation applied only to certain higher-ranking officials. Petitioner denied the request. On July 31, 1995, private respondent filed a complaint for prohibition and injunction with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City. Petitioner moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. The RTC denied the motion to dismiss and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed. The appellate court affirmed the RTC’s jurisdiction, ruling that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies did not apply because the controverted act (the reassignment) was patently illegal as it violated private respondent’s constitutional right to security of tenure. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462.
2. Whether private respondent has a cause of action despite his failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

RULING

1. No, the Regional Trial Court does not have jurisdiction. The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over all employees of government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. The National Irrigation Administration (NIA), created under Presidential Decree No. 1702, is such an entity. The Civil Service Commission is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service. Section 13, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 provides that appeals from a decision of a department or agency head shall be brought to the Merit Systems Protection Board (now the CSC En Banc). The grievance procedure requires that decisions of lower-level officials be appealed to the agency head, then to the Civil Service Commission. Cases involving personnel actions, including reassignment, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Therefore, the RTC committed an error in taking jurisdiction and should have dismissed the case.
2. No, private respondent does not have a cause of action for filing in the trial court without first exhausting administrative remedies. As an NIA employee covered by the Civil Service Law, private respondent should have first complained to the NIA Administrator, and if necessary, appealed to the Civil Service Commission. If a litigant goes to court without first pursuing administrative remedies, his action is premature, and he has no cause of action. The exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine do not apply. The issue was not purely a question of law, as certain facts needed resolution (e.g., whether the reassignment involved a reduction in rank). Private respondent’s allegations of bad faith, discrimination, and patent illegality were mere speculations unsupported by evidence. Official functions are presumed regular. Thus, private respondent’s complaint was filed prematurely.