G.R. No. 209331 , August 24, 2015.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, REPRESENTED BY HON. CESAR V. PURISIMA IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, AND THE BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, REPRESENTED BY HON. ROZZANO RUFINO B. BIAZON, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, HON. FELICITAS O. LARON-CACANINDIN, IN HER CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, BRANCH 17, RONNIE C. SILVESTRE, EDWARD P. DELA CUESTA, ROGEL C. GATCHALIAN, IMELDA D.CRUZ, LILIBETH S. SANDAG, RAYMOND P. VENTURA, MA. LIZA S. TORRES, ARNEL C. ALCARAZ, MA. LOURDES V. MANGAOANG, FRANCIS AGUSTIN Y. ERPE, CARLOS T. SO, MARIETTA D. ZAMORANOS, CARMELITA M. TALUSAN, AREFILES H. CARREON, AND ROMALINO G. VALDEZ, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

On September 2, 2013, President Benigno Aquino III issued Executive Order No. 140 creating the Customs Policy Research Office (CPRO) under the Department of Finance. Section 3 of EO 140 stated the CPRO would be composed of organic personnel and augmented by detailed or seconded personnel from the DOF, Bureau of Customs (BOC), and other agencies. EO 140 took effect immediately upon its publication in two newspapers of general circulation on September 17, 2013. On that same day, BOC Commissioner Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon, with the approval of DOF Secretary Cesar V. Purisima, issued Customs Personnel Order No. B-189-2013, detailing 27 BOC personnel to the CPRO. Fifteen of the affected employees refused to comply. Instead, on September 30, 2013, they filed a Petition for declaratory relief with an application for a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. They assailed the validity of CPO No. B-189-2013, arguing it violated Section 703 of the Tariff and Customs Code, their right to security of tenure, and Section 3 of EO 140, and that it was invalid for being issued prior to EO 140’s effectivity. The RTC, through Executive Judge Marino M. Dela Cruz, Jr., granted a 72-hour TRO on October 1, 2013. The case was raffled to Branch 17 presided by Judge Felicitas O. Laron-Cacanindin, who extended the TRO to 20 days in an Order dated October 4, 2013, finding the CPO violated rules on detail by failing to specify its duration. The DOF and BOC filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing the RTC had no jurisdiction and the requisites for declaratory relief were absent. Judge Laron-Cacanindin later denied the application for a writ of preliminary injunction on October 21, 2013. The DOF and BOC then filed a Petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, arguing the Civil Service Commission (CSC) has exclusive jurisdiction over personnel actions affecting civil service employees and that the employees failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the Petition for declaratory relief filed by the BOC employees challenging the validity of Customs Personnel Order No. B-189-2013, or whether exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Civil Service Commission as the sole arbiter of controversies involving personnel actions in the civil service.

RULING

The dissenting opinion of Justice Leonen holds that the Civil Service Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over questions regarding personnel actions affecting civil service employees. It is the sole arbiter that decides controversies regarding the civil service at first instance. Courts should not directly assume jurisdiction based on allegations of unconstitutionality and invalidity of government regulations when the question, in essence, involves a personnel action. The dissent emphasizes that the core issue is the legality of a detail order, which is a personnel action, and thus falls within the primary competence of the CSC. The employees’ arguments, including the alleged violation of their security of tenure and the claim that the order was issued prior to the effectivity of EO 140, are matters that should first be addressed through the administrative machinery of the CSC. Therefore, the RTC should have dismissed the Petition for declaratory relief for lack of jurisdiction.