G.R. No. 112243 February 23, 1995
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, DR. ORLANDO PUA and DR. JOSE CABRERA, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ROGER A. DOMAGAS and FE SIBBALUCA, respondents.

FACTS

An administrative complaint for grave misconduct and dishonesty was filed against private respondent Fe Sibbaluca, the Administrative Officer III of the Provincial Health Office of Cagayan, docketed as Administrative Case No. 000023 S. 1991 of the Department of Health. Petitioner Secretary of Health issued an order on December 17, 1991, placing Sibbaluca under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days. Pending resolution of her motion to lift the suspension, Sibbaluca filed an action for prohibition, mandamus, and injunction with a prayer for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao, Branch 1. She contended that upon the effectivity of the New Local Government Code on January 1, 1992, the Secretary of Health lost disciplinary jurisdiction over her, as such power was now vested in the Provincial Governor. The RTC, through respondent Judge Roger A. Domagas, issued a temporary restraining order on January 15, 1992, restraining the enforcement of the suspension order and further administrative proceedings. After hearings where the Secretary of Health’s counsel did not participate, the RTC rendered a decision on March 25, 1992, in favor of Sibbaluca, ruling that the Secretary of Health ceased to have jurisdiction over her due to the Local Government Code of 1991, and restrained the petitioners from enforcing the suspension order. The RTC later issued an order on April 14, 1992, for the issuance of a writ of execution and clarified that the suspension order and subsequent orders were null and void. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on May 28, 1992. On the same date, the Secretary of Health filed a Notice of Appeal, which the RTC denied for being filed out of time, declaring the decision final and executory, and in a decision dated June 26, 1992, convicted petitioner Dr. Jose Cabrera of indirect contempt for refusing to comply with the writ of execution. Petitioners then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition, ruling that an ordinary appeal was the plain and adequate remedy. The Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not giving due course to the special civil action of certiorari and prohibition filed by petitioners and in not touching on the merits of the petition, specifically, whether the RTC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction in ruling that the Secretary of Health lost disciplinary jurisdiction over private respondent upon the effectivity of the Local Government Code of 1991.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and annulled and set aside the challenged decision and orders of the RTC. The Court held that the petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals was not a mere substitute for a lost appeal, as the circumstances warranted its filing, including the RTC’s issuance of a writ of execution, denial of the motion to stay execution and the notice of appeal, and the finding of contempt against a petitioner. More importantly, petitioners questioned the RTC’s jurisdiction in enjoining the Secretary of Health’s order. On the merits, the Court ruled that the Local Government Code of 1991 took effect explicitly on January 1, 1992, as stated in its Effectivity Clause. Jurisdiction is determined by the statute in force at the commencement of the action. The administrative case against Sibbaluca was commenced in 1991, and the suspension order was issued on December 17, 1991, under the Administrative Code of 1987 and Executive Order No. 119, which vested control and supervision in the Secretary of Health. Since jurisdiction was acquired by the Secretary of Health before the effectivity of the Local Government Code, it continued until the final disposition of the case. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction once acquired remains until the full termination of the case.