DECANO V EDU

FACTS:
1. The then Undersecretary of Public Works and Communications
issued to Federico Decano, a temporary appointment to the
position of janitor in the Motor Vehicles Office.
2. The appointment was approved by the CSC. Federico assumed
office for almost 4 years .
3. Cipriano Posadas, as Acting Registrar of the Land Transportation
Commission received a telegram from Romeo Edu, in his capacity
as Acting Commissioner of LTC terminating Decanos services
effective as of the close of business that day.
4. Consequently, Decano filed to the CFI a petition for Mandamus
and Injunction claiming that the aforementioned officials acted
without power and in excess of their authority in removing him
from service. He prayed to declare the order of removal null and
void.
5. The writ of preliminary injunction was issued by CFI commanding
the officials to desist from disturbing Decano from his position
and to pay Decano his corresponding salary.
6. CFIs DECISION:
Decanos appointment was temporary and as such he can
be ousted from his position at any time with or without
cause.
Decanos removal was null and void upon the ground that
under the law respondent Commission of LTC was not the
appointing authority insofar as the position of Decano and
all other minor positions were concerned and thus lacking
power of appointment, Edu had neither the power of
removal.
7. Hence, this petition.
In seeking reversal of the CFIs decision, respondents
make capital of the fact that the petition for mandamus
with injunction was filed with the CFI of Pangasinan while
Edu holds office in QC. It is beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of CFI of Pangasinan.

ISSUE: Whether it is within the territorial jurisdiction of CFI of

Pangasinan to issue the writ of preliminary injunction

HELD: YES. Since the acts to be restrained were being done in

Dagupan City, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of CFI
of Pangasinan, the latter had jurisdiction to restrain said acts
even if the office of Edu is in Quezon City.
1. In the case at bar, Decano seeks primarily the annulment of the
dismissal order issued by Edu, mandamus and injunction being
 then merely corollary remedies to the main relief sought, and
what is prayed to be enjoined, as in fact the trial court did enjoin
by preliminary injunction, is the implementation of the
termination order against Decano.
The injunction is question consequently, must be taken
only to restrain the implementation of respondent Edus
order by his co-respondent whose official station at
Dagupan City is within the territorial boundaries of the trial
courts jurisdictional district.
2. Also, Edu was impleaded as respondent for the determination of
the main issue involved: The legality of Edus order of dismissal;
being the pivotal issue to determine the merits of the mandamus
and injunction aspects of the petition. Edu was joined as
respondents not for injunction purposes but for the
determination of the legality of his dismissal order to his co-
respondent Posadas at Dagupan City to implement the same and
terminate the services of the petitioner in Dagupan City.
3. Where the main issue is the correctness of a nationals officials
decision, the provincial courts have equal jurisdiction with Manila
courts to review the decision of national officials.
If it is otherwise, the litigants of limited means would
practically be denied access to the courts of the localities
where they reside and where the questioned acts are
sought to be enforced. This would amount to denial of
access to the courts and would unnecessarily encumber
the Manila courts whose dockets are already over-
burdened.