G.R. NO. 157783 - NILO PALOMA, VS. DANILO MORA, HILARIO FESTEJO, MAXIMA SALVINO, BRYN BONGBONG AND VALENTINO SEVILLA. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, all foregoing considered, the complaint thus filed for mandamus with a Prayer for a Writ for Preliminary Injunction with Damages is hereby DISMISSED for being a premature cause of action. Without pronouncement as to costs. [9] Petitioner's motion for reconsideration likewise failed to sway the trial court by Order dated 28 June 1996. [10] Meanwhile, petitioner filed a Complaint on 29 March 1996 with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) against same respondents herein, for alleged Violation of Civil Service Law and Rules and for Illegal Dismissal. [11] On 06 November 1996, the CSC issued its decision [12] exonerating respondents from the charge of violating the Civil Service Law when they voted for the termination of petitioner's services as General Manager of the Palompon, Leyte Water District. Thus, the CSC dismissed [13] the complaint filed by petitioner before it, to wit: In view of the foregoing, the instant complaint of Mr. Nilo Paloma former General Manager of Palompon Water District against Messrs. Danilo Mora, Hilario Festejo, Bryn Bongbong and Ms. Maxima Salvino for Violation of Civil Service Law and Rules and Illegal Dismissal is hereby DISMISSED, for lack of prima facie case. [14] In its Decision [15] dated 15 November 2002, the Court of Appeals yielded to the decision of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner, viz : WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the assailed Orders of the Regional Trial Court dated 12 March 1996 and 28 June 1996 in Civil Case No. PN-0016, are AFFIRMED in toto . [16] Equally unavailing was petitioner's motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on 01 April 2003. Affronted by the ruling, petitioner elevated the matter to us via the instant petition, contending that: THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF PALOMPON, LEYTE, BRANCH 17. [17] The central inquiry raised in this petition is whether or not the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its challenged decision. Concretely, we are tasked to resolve: (1) whether or not mandamus will lie to compel the Board of Directors of the Palompon, Leyte Water District to reinstate the General Manager thereof, and (2) whether or not the CSC has primary jurisdiction over the case for illegal dismissal of petitioner. Petitioner, in his brief, is emphatic that the Court of Appeals overlooked the fact that mandamus may lie to compel the performance of a discretionary duty in case of non-observance of due process. He enthuses that the Court of Appeals overlooked the fact that as an aggrieved party, he need not exhaust administrative remedies and may resort to court action for relief as due process was clearly violated. [18] Espousing a contrary view, respondents posit that petitioner breached the rule against forum shopping as he filed another complaint for illegal dismissal against them with the CSC after obtaini