COMPLAINT
(With Provisional Remedy)
Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel, to this Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:
x x x x
III
Plaintiff was appointed as Executive Assistant III, on contractual basis by then Chairman Eufemio Domingo of the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, effective September 3, 2001, x x x
IV
On September 17, 2001, plaintiff was designated as Assistant Accountant, x x x
V
Since the appointment is contractual and no period was stated, it is clearly understood that the term is for a period of one (1) year from September 3, 2001 and subject to renewal, pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 38 issued by the Civil Service Commission.1âwphi1
VI
On or about September 20, 2001, Chairman Eufemio Domingo resigned as Chairman and the defendant was appointed as the new Chairman of the Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption
VII
On September 28, 2001, without due process and notice, the defendant, without cause and with grave abuse of discretion, capriciously, whimsically and illegally terminated the services of the plaintiff, in violation of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38.
VIII
Plaintiff is a Certified Public Accountant and a First Grade Civil Service eligible, hence very much qualified for the job. His appointment is not co-terminus with the term of Chairman Domingo as can be gleaned from his job description, x x x
IX
The termination of plaintiff’s services is not even supported by any written notice to the herein plaintiff, stating therein the reasons for his termination, but was done in an orthodox manner, by merely preventing the plaintiff to report for work
x x x x
XI
Finally, on November 23, 2001, copy of a service record signed by Jose Sonny G. Matala, Executive Director dated November 20, 2001, was given to the plaintiff embodying the cause of separation which states"
Co-terminus with Chairman Domingo being personal and confidential staff x x x x x x."
x x x x
XII
The termination of plaintiff by the defendant is illegal and violative of due process as plaintiff's appointment as contractual employee will expire or September 3, 2002 only.
XIII
Defendant, being a lawyer and formerly connected with the Civil Service Commission, is aware of the law that contractual employment without a definite period is presumed to be for one (1) year pursuant to Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38.
x x x x
XVI
The filing of this case in court is not violative of the Rule on Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, as there are several exceptions in the exhaustion of administrative remedies enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Paat vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 167, such as:
(1) when there is a violation of due process;
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction;
(4) x x x x x x x x xxx;
(5) when there is irreparable injury;
(6) x x x x x x x x xxx;
(7) when to require exhaustion of remedies would be unreasonable;
(8) x x x x x x x x xxx;
(9) x x x x x x x x xxx;
(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and adequate remedy; and
(11) when there are circumstances indicating the urgency of judicial intervention
XVII
The illegal act or the defendant of terminating plaintiff's services in violation of the latter's right to security of tenure and due process has caused plaintiff to suffer moral shock, anxiety, besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, social humiliation, embarrassment and similar injuries, thereby entitling him to recover damages from the defendant in the amount of no less than ₱500,000.00
x x x x
ALLEGATION IN SUPPORT OF THE PRAYER FOR THE IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION
x x x x
XXII
Irreparable injury has been caused and continue to cause plaintiff, hence, the necessity of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, ordering the defendant to reinstate the plaintiff, while this case is being heard
x x x x
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Court to render judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant by:
BEFORE HEARING ON THE MERITS
ORDERING the immediate issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, COMMANDING the defendant to reinstate immediately the plaintiff to his previous position
AFTER HEARING ON THE MERITS
1. DECLARING the Preliminary Mandatory Injunction as PERMANENT;
2. DECLARING the DISMISSAL of the plaintiff as illegal and violative of plaintiff's right to due process and security of tenure;
3. x x xx 22