uecano v Ldu (1eehankee 1980)

uocLrlne
1he power of [udlclal revlew of Lhe admlnlsLraLlve declslons of naLlonal offlclals ls noL conflned Lo Lhe
courLs of flrsL lnsLance of MeLropollLan Manlla where Lhelr offlces are malnLalned Lo Lhe excluslon of
Lhe courLs of flrsL lnsLance ln Lhose locallLles where Lhe aggrleved parLles reslde and Lhe quesLloned
declslons are soughL Lo be enforced
lacLs
eLlLlonerappellee uecano was Lemporarlly appolnLed by Lhe undersecreLary of ubllc Works and
CommunlcaLlons as [anlLor ln Lhe MoLor vehlcle uagupan ClLy Agency
Pe worked as [anlLor for almosL four years unLll on Aprll 1966 respondenL appellanL osadas Lhe
AcLlng 8eglsLrar of Land 1ransporLaLlon Commlsslon uagupan ClLy recelved a Lelegram from hls co
respondenLappellanL Ldu ln hls capaclLy as Lhe AcLlng Commlssloner of Land 1ransporLaLlon
Commlsslon (L1C) sLaLlng LhaL peLlLloner's servlces were LermlnaLed
uecano flled wlLh Cll angaslnan a peLlLlon for Mandamus and ln[uncLlon" (lease noLe LhaL Lhe
case was flled ln angaslnan whlle Lhe offlce of Mr Ldu was slLuaLed ln Cuezon ClLy) praylng LhaL Lhe
order be declared null and vold lL belng done by Ldu who had no power Lo LermlnaLe hlm Also
uecano prayed LhaL Lhe courL en[oln prellmlnarlly and Lhen permanenLly Lhe respondenLs from
ousLlng hlm from hls poslLlon
AL Lhe commencemenL of Lhe proceedlng Cll lssued a wrlL of prellmlnary ln[uncLlon agalnsL
respondenLs
AfLer Lrlal Cll ruled LhaL even Lhough peLlLloner was only Lemporarlly appolnLed as [anlLor and may
be dlsmlssed aL any Llme respondenL Ldu had no power Lo ousL uecano slnce respondenL was noL
Lhe appolnLlng auLhorlLy lnsofar as Lhe poslLlon of Lhe peLlLloner ls concerned (So lf he dld noL have
Lhe power of appolnLmenL nelLher dld he have Lhe power of removal) Pence Lhe presenL appeal by
respondenLs
lssues
WCn respondenLappellanL Ldu had Lhe auLhorlLy Lo LermlnaLe Lhe servlces of peLlLloner uecano? (l
don'L Lhlnk Lhls ls lmporLanL Lo Lhe lesson)
WCn Lhe Cll of angaslnan had [urlsdlcLlon Lo acL upon Lhe peLlLlon flled by uecano? (Ldu argues
LhaL Lhe peLlLlon for mandamus and ln[uncLlon flled ln Cll of angaslnan ls beyond Lhe LerrlLorlal
[urlsdlcLlon of Lhe sald courL slnce he holds offlce ln Cuezon ClLy)
Poldlng
no even lf Lhe appolnLmenL of peLlLloner was only Lemporary Ldu had no power Lo remove uecano
Cnly Lhe offlclal who appolnLed peLlLloner has Lhe power Lo remove hlm and LhaL ls Lhe
undersecreLary acLlng for Lhe SecreLary of ubllc Works and communlcaLlons nor had Ldu been
granLed such power by any law
?es Cll of angaslnan has [urlsdlcLlon Lo acL upon Lhe peLlLlon flled by uecano
8aLlo
8espondenLs rely on Lhe case of AcosLa v Alvendla where SC pursuanL Lo sec 44 (h) of Lhe !udlclary
AcL [olnLly or alLernaLlvely wlLh sec 4 8ule 63 of Lhe 8ules of CourL and/or secLlon 2 of 8ule 38 ruled
LhaL a courL of flrsL lnsLance has no [urlsdlcLlon Lo requlre or conLrol Lhe execuLlon of an acL
commlLLed beyond Lhe llmlLs of lLs LerrlLorlal [urlsdlcLlon
1he case lnvolved peLlLlon for wrlLs of ln[uncLlon seeklng Lo conLrol Lhe acLlons of courLs or offlcers
ouLslde Lhe LerrlLorlal [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe respondenL courLs of flrsL lnsLance where sald peLlLlons had
been flled 1he AcosLa rullng of non[urlsdlcLlon does noL apply however Lo Lhe clrcumsLances of Lhe
presenL case
ln Lhe presenL case uecano prlmarlly seeks Lhe annulmenL of Lhe dlsmlssal order lssued by Ldu Lhe
mandamus and ln[uncLlon were only corollary remedles Lo Lhe maln rellef soughL Mr Ldu was [olned
as respondenL noL for ln[uncLlon purposes buL malnly for LesLlng Lhe legallLy of hls dlsmlssal order and
hls LransmlLLal Lhereof Lo hls corespondenL reglsLrar aL uagupan ClLy Lo lmplemenL Lhe same and
LermlnaLe Lhe servlces of Lhe peLlLloner ln uagupan ClLy
Also whaL ls prayed Lo be en[olned was Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of Lhe LermlnaLlon order ln uagupan
ClLy 1herefore as far as Ldu ls concerned Lhe order LermlnaLlng Lhe servlces of uecano was a folt
occompll and Lhls he had done wlLhouL auLhorlLy 1he ln[uncLlon ln quesLlon musL be Laken only Lo
resLraln Lhe lmplemenLaLlon of respondenL Ldus order by hls corespondenL whose offlclal sLaLlon aL
uagupan ClLy ls wlLhln Lhe LerrlLorlal boundarles of Lhe Lrlal courLs [urlsdlcLlonal dlsLrlcL
ln ltectot of tbe 8oteoo of 1elecommoolcotloos vs Allqoeo et ol Lhe acLs relaLlve Lo Lhe
esLabllshmenL of a local Lelephone sysLem by peLlLloners were belng done wlLhln Lhe LerrlLorlal
boundarles of Lhe provlnce or dlsLrlcL of respondenL CourL and so sald CourL had [urlsdlcLlon Lo
resLraln Lhem by ln[uncLlon lL does noL maLLer LhaL some of Lhe respondenLs ln Lhe Lrlal courL aL
whom Lhe ln[uncLlon order was lssued had Lhelr offlclal resldence ouLslde Lhe LerrlLorlal [urlsdlcLlon
of Lhe Lrlal courL"
ln case of oyocoo vs 1be noootoble xecotlve 5ectetoty 1he docLrlnes lnvoked ln supporL of Lhe
Lheory of non[urlsdlcLlon (CasLano vs Loblngler 7 hll 91 Acosto vs AlveoJlo L14938 CcL 31
1960 5omot Mloloq co vs AtooJo L17109 !une 30 1961) are lnappllcable ln LhaL Lhose cases
lnvolved peLlLlons for wrlLs of ln[uncLlon seeklng Lo conLrol Lhe acLlons of courLs or offlcers ouLslde
Lhe LerrlLorlal [urlsdlcLlon of Lhe respondenL courLs lnvolved Pere Lhe sole polnL ln lssue ls wbetbet
tbe Jeclsloo of tbe tespooJeot pobllc offlcets wos leqolly cottect ot oot and wlLhouL golng lnLo Lhe
merlLs of Lhe case we see oo coqeot teosoo why Lhls power of [udlclal revlew should be coofloeJ Lo
Lhe courLs of flrsL lnsLance of Lhe locallLy wbete tbe offlces of tespooJeots ote molotoloeJ Lo Lhe
exclosloo of Lhe courLs of flrsL lnsLance ln Lhose locolltles wbete tbe plolotlffs teslJe and wbete tbe
poestlooeJ Jeclsloos ote beloq eofotceJ lL ls easy Lo see LhaL lf Lhe conLesLed rullng of Lhe courL
below ls susLalned Lhe same would resulL noL only ln botJsblp to lltlqoots of llmlteJ meoos
pracLlcally amounLlng Lo Jeolol of occess to tbe cootts buL would also oooecessotlly eocombet tbe
Moollo cootts wbose Jockets ote olteoJy ovet botJeoeJ AcLually slnce Ottoo vs 5loqsoo 39 hll
440 Lhe power of ptovloclol cootts of flrsL lnsLance Lo revlew admlnlsLraLlve declslons of naLlonal
offlclals has been cooslsteotly tecoqolzeJ Whlle Lhe peLlLloner hereln also prayed LhaL Lhe land
auLhorlLles be ordered Lo relnsLaLe her orlglnal appllcaLlon such remedy ls purely a cotolloty Lo Lhe
maln rellef soughL for as Lhe allegaLlons now sLand reversal of Lhe quesLloned admlnlsLraLlve
declslon would necessarlly lead Lo Lhe same resulL
4 Sorry copy pasLe ung lasL parL kasl Llngln ko lmporLanLe ung buong quoLe (pareho kasl nung
presenL case)
4 1o my undersLandlng Lhe SC made Lwo polnLs ln explalnlng why Cll angaslnan had
[urlsdlcLlon 1 Slnce Lhe maln rellef soughL ls Lhe legallLy of Lhe dlsmlssal order Lhe courL
would Lhen be exerclslng lLs power of [udlclal revlew Lo examlne Lhe power of an
admlnlsLraLlve offlclal As hlghllghLed above Lhere ls no reason Lo conflne such power ln Lhe
courL of Lhe place where Lhe offlclal holds offlce for lL would lead Lo ln[usLlce Lo Lhe person
seeklng rellef lf lL were oLherwlse and 2 1he ln[uncLlon and mandamus soughL by peLlLloner
was noL meanL Lo conLrol Lhe acLlons of Ldu buL Lo en[oln osadas from lmplemenLlng Lhe
order (lf Lhe lmplemenLaLlon succeeded such would be wlLhln Lhe [urlsdlcLlon of Cll of
angaslnan)