511 Phil. 708
PANGANIBAN, J.:
"This treats of the Urgent Motion for Issuance of Preliminary Injunction dated December 2, 2002 filed by [respondent] through counsel with this Court.
"No Comment on the same was ever filed by the Office of the Solicitor General which is handling this case for and in behalf of the [Petitioner] Civil Service Commission despite opportunity given it, per Resolution dated November 8, 2002.
"This Court, after taking into consideration the allegations and the arguments set forth in this motion filed by [respondent] to support his stand, opted to grant [respondent's] application for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction at this stage of the proceedings considering that he is entitled to the relief demanded and that the implementation of the assailed Resolution dated April 3, 2002 of x x x Civil Service Commission and the Order implementing it issued pursuant thereto, would probably work injustice and would cause irreparable damage to [respondent].
"WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the Motion for the Issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed by [herein respondent] is hereby GRANTED. Let [the] Writ of Preliminary Injunction be issued enjoining, restraining and prohibiting public respondents [herein petitioner], their representatives and/or anybody acting in their behalf, from implementing CSC Resolution dated April 3, 2002 and to recall the order implementing it, if any issued pursuant thereto, upon the posting of a bond in the amount of One Hundred Thousand (P100,000.00) Pesos, to be executed to the [petitioner] or parties enjoined, to the effect that [herein respondent] will pay to [herein petitioner] or parties all damages which he or they may sustain by reason of the injunction if the Court should finally decide that [herein respondent] is not entitled thereto."[4]
"On December 22, 1995, a Complaint for Grave Misconduct and Moonlighting with Urgent Prayer for Preventive Suspension and Disarming was filed by the stockholders and board members of United Workers Transport Corp. (UWTC) against SPO1 Rimando Gannapao before the Philippine National Police, Inspectorate Division, Camp Crame, Quezon City.
"Pursuant to NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 96-010 dated July 21 1996, a Summary Hearing was conducted by the Office of the Legal Service of the National Headquarters PNP against [respondent] for the alleged moonlighting. [Court's comment: Records show that prior to the investigation conducted by the Office of Legal Service, however, another pre-charge investigation had been held for the same case by the Headquarters Support Services also of the National Headquarters of the PNP. The investigation appears to have been dismissed upon the recommendation of Atty. Joselito Casugbu, who found the complaint to be one of pure harassment.[5]
"On November 26, 1997, the Philippine National Police Chief Recaredo A. Sarmiento II rendered a Decision imposing the three (3) months suspension of [respondent], the dispositive part of which reads:"WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Headquarters finds respondent SPO1 RIMANDO A. GANNAPAO GUILTY of the charge of serious irregularities in the performance of duties, thus, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of three (3) months suspension from the police service without pay.""On February 6, 1998, [respondent] filed an 'Urgent Motion for Reconsideration' which was denied by the PNP Director General Santiago L. Aliño in [a] Resolution dated April 14, 1998.
"[Respondent] appealed the PNP Resolution to the National Appellate Board (NAB), National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM). The appeal was dismissed in a Resolution dated December 29, 1999.
"On February 10, 2000, [respondent] filed a Petition for Appeal with the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). The appeal was denied and the penalty of three (3) months suspension of petitioner was affirmed in a Resolution dated July 18, 2000.
"Thereafter, [respondent] appealed to the Civil Service Commission praying the setting aside of the penalty of three (3) months suspension and/or for the Commission to conduct a hearing or a reinvestigation alleging lack of due process.
"On April 3, 2002, the Civil Service Commission rendered Resolution No. 020487, the dispositive part of which reads:"WHEREFORE, the appeal of Rimando A. Gannapao is hereby DISMISSED. However, the order dated February 26, 2001 of then DILG Secretary Alfredo S. Lim affirming the suspension of Gannapao for a period of three (3) months is modified to dismissal from the service.""On May 30, 2002, Gannapao filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals assailing the Resolution of the Civil Service Commission.
"On January 8, 2003, CSC through the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Comment on the Petition specifically stating among others that Gannapao was not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
"On January 14, 2003, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution granting Gannapao's motion for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining, restraining and prohibiting CSC from implementing its assailed CSC Resolution No. 020487 dated April 3, 2002 dismissing [respondent].
"[Respondent] filed its motion for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution dated July 29, 2003."[6]
"Sec. 2. Who may grant preliminary injunction. -- A preliminary injunction may be granted by the court where the action or proceeding is pending. If the action or proceeding is pending in the Court of Appeals or in the Supreme Court, it may be issued by said court or any member thereof."Furthermore, Section 82 of Rule VI of CSC Memorandum Circular 19-99[12] recognizes the authority of the CA and the Supreme Court to issue restraining orders or injunctions, as follows:
"Section 82. Effect of Pendency of Petition for Review/Certiorari with the Court. -- The filing and pendency of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals or certiorari with the Supreme Court shall not stop the execution of the final decision of the Commission unless the Court issues a restraining order or an injunction. (Emphasis provided.)Having appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the CSC,[13] the CA clearly has the discretion to issue an ancillary writ of preliminary injunction to secure the rights of private respondent pending appeal of his dismissal. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the exercise of judgment by the courts in injunctive matters should not be interfered with.[14]
"(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;Based on the foregoing, the requisites for the issuance of the writ are the following: (1) the existence of a clear and unmistakable right that must be protected and (2) an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage.[17] In taking cognizance of a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction, a court has the duty to determine whether the requisites for the grant of the injunction are present in the case before it.[18]
"(b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during the litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
"(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual."
"It has been consistently held that there is no power the exercise of which is more delicate, which requires greater caution, deliberation and sound discretion, or more dangerous in a doubtful case, than the issuance of an injunction. It is the strong arm of equity that should never be extended unless to cases of great injury, where courts of law cannot afford an adequate or commensurate remedy in damages."Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and fair play, this Court scrutinized the records of the case and, indeed, found sufficient grounds for the grant of the injunctive Writ. Prior to the finality of the CSC Decision dismissing him, private respondent has a clear and unmistakable right to his current position in the police service. Unquestionably, the right to employment, oftentimes the lowly employee's only noble source of bread and butter, is entitled to protection by the State.[20]
"SEC. 47. Disciplinary Jurisdiction. -However, this rule applies to disciplinary cases appealed to the CSC from departments and agencies and not to appeals from the CSC to the CA. The applicable rule in this case is Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, which provides:x x x x x x x x x
"(4). An appeal shall not stop the decision from being executory and in case the penalty is suspension or removal, the respondent shall be considered as having been under preventive suspension during the pendency of the appeal in the event he wins an appeal."
"SEC. 12. Effect of appeal. -- The appeal shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms as it may deem just."[11] See Government Service Insurance System v. Civil Service Commission, 202 SCRA 799, 804, October 15, 1991.
"Section 50. Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals. -- A party may elevate a decision of the Commission before the Court of Appeals by way of a petition for review under Rule 43 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Court."[14] Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Company, Inc. v. Bitanga, 415 Phil. 43, 59, August 10, 2001.
"SEC. 18. The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare."[21] Annex "5" of Respondent's Memorandum; rollo, pp. 259-265.
Section 2 of Article IX further provides:
"SEC. 2. x x x
"(3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law."