This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-05-31 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner thus filed with the CA a Petition for Review with an Urgent Motion for Issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction. The CA issued a TRO on September 4, 2002[16] and a writ of preliminary injunction on January 14, 2003.[17] In a petition for certiorari filed with this Court, the CSC questioned the validity of the CA's issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, arguing that the injunctive relief violates the Administrative Code and the CSC rules which state that administrative disciplinary penalties shall be immediately executory, notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal. By Decision[18] dated November 17, 2005, we sustained the CA ruling and found no grave abuse of discretion in the issuance of the preliminary injunction. The CA, however, dissolved the writ in its Decision dated April 27, 2007 affirming CSC Resolution No. 020487. The CA ruled that petitioner cannot claim denial of due process since he was given ample opportunity to present his side. According to the CA, where the opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, and the party could present its side or defend its interest in due course, there is no denial of procedural due process. Thus, the CA decreed: | |||||
|
2006-11-02 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| More so, in Civil Service Commission v. Court of Appeals, we held that "[a]bsent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, the exercise of judgment by the courts in injunctive matters should not be interfered with."[24] | |||||