Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
OWWA argued: (1) OWWA already implemented the new organizational structure as the advertisement, recruitment, and
placement of OWWA employees have been accomplished; none of the respondents in this case have been dismissed; the act
sought to be prevented has long been consummated, hence, the remedy of injunction should no longer be entertained. (2) its
reorganization doesnt require an amendatory law since there was no previous OWWA structure in the 1st place. (3) Respondents
didnt claim they were the consultants, casual/contractual workers who would allegedly be displaced. (4) An EE may be reassigned
from one organizational unit to another in the same agency, provided that such reassignment shall not involve a reduction in rank,
status or salary.
Respondents insist: that the organization structure was done hastily and without adequate study and its creation of organizational
structure of the OWWA would require a presidential fiat or a legislative enactment.
[Supreme Court limited the matter regarding the propriety of the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction by the RTC and not
the merits of the case itself since it is still pending before the RTC]
HELD:
RTC committed GADELEJ. A preliminary injunctions objective is to preserve the status quo until the trial court hears fully the
merits of the case. In this case, RTC didnt maintain such when it issued the injunction. What RTC did was to preserve the state of
affairs before the issuance of Resolution No. 001 (which approved the structure of the OWWA). RTC forgot that what is imperative
in preliminary injunction cases is that the writ can not be effectuated to establish new relations between the parties. It didnt
maintain the status quo but restored the landscape before the implementation of OWWAs reorganization. In thus issuing the writ
of preliminary injunction, the substantive issues of the main case were resolved by the trial court. RTC similarly prejudged the
validity of the issuances released by the OWWA Board of Trustees, as well as the other governmental bodies (i.e., DBM, DOLE),
which approved the organizational structure and staffing pattern of the OWWA (apply the presumption of regularity of the
government issuances)
Also, a mere blanket allegation that they are all officers and employees of the OWWA without a showing of how they stand to be
directly injured by the implementation of its questioned organizational structure does not suffice to prove a right in esse. There
was no showing that they are the employees who are in grave danger of being displaced. Injunction is not a remedy to protect or
enforce contingent, abstract, or future rights; it will not issue to protect a right not in esse and which may never arise, or to
restrain an action which did not give rise to a cause of action.
Again, as to the question of the validity of the OWWA reorganization remains the subject in the main case pending before the trial
court. Its annulment cant be raised in this petition.
Assuming the respondents stand to be in danger of being transferred due to the reorganisation: the law provides that any EE who
questions the validity of his transfer should appeal to the CSC. And admin remedies should be exhausted before resorting to
regular courts.
FINALLY, the acts sought to be prohibited had been accomplished. And injunction will not lie here the acts sought to be enjoined
have already been accomplished/consummated. In here, reorganization already started upon approval by the Board of Trustrees of
its Resolution No. 1 and DBM, OWWA Administrator and DOLE issued a series of issuances approving the he organizational structure
and staffing pattern of the agency. Hence, the act sought to be enjoined is a fait accompli.