G.R. No. 120704 March 3, 1997
HON. BARTOLOME C. CARALE, Chairman, National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC), HON. IRENEA A. CENIZA, Presiding Commissioner, Fourth Division, NLRC, and HON. REYNOSO A. BELARMINO, Executive Labor Arbiter, Regional Arbitration Branch, Region VII, petitioners, vs. HON. PAMPIO A. ABARINTOS, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Cebu City, and FERDINAND V. PONTEJOS, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Ferdinand V. Pontejos, a permanent Labor Arbitration Associate at the NLRC Regional Arbitration Branch VII, was detailed to the NLRC Fourth Division in Cebu City via Administrative Order No. 10-03 issued by petitioner Chairman Bartolome C. Carale. Pontejos filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, presided by respondent Judge Pampio A. Abarintos, alleging the detail was an illegal transfer tantamount to removal, violative of his security of tenure, and was a vindictive act motivated by his union activities and prior conflicts with petitioners Ceniza and Belarmino. He sought a writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioners filed motions to dismiss, arguing the Civil Service Commission (CSC) possessed exclusive jurisdiction over personnel actions like details, and Pontejos failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Respondent Judge denied the motions, holding that the urgency of judicial intervention and the alleged patent illegality of the act exempted Pontejos from the exhaustion rule. The court then granted the application for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the implementation of the detail order.

ISSUE

Did respondent Judge commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the motions to dismiss and in granting the writ of preliminary injunction?

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling the assailed orders and directing the dismissal of the civil case. The Court ruled that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory. Pontejos’ claim involved a personnel action—a detail—over which the CSC has primary jurisdiction. The law provides a clear administrative hierarchy for appeal, and Pontejos’ bare allegations of urgency and patent illegality did not justify direct judicial recourse. The circumstances did not fall under established exceptions, such as when the administrative body is patently without jurisdiction, when the act is clearly illegal, or when irreparable damage would result. A detail, being a temporary assignment, does not constitute removal and thus does not inherently violate security of tenure.
Furthermore, the grant of the preliminary injunction was procedurally flawed. The judge failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under the Rules of Court to conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the injunction should be granted. The writ was issued based solely on the allegations in the complaint and supporting affidavit, without such hearing, which constituted a grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the trial court should have deferred to the CSC’s expertise on civil service matters.