a. CSC through 2 en banc resolutions and 2 legal opinions affirm my permanent appoint and that my position is career and not cover by the CESO eligibility.
b. Despite my permanent appointment, Malacanang issued appointment to my subordinate on an acting capacity, citing argument that the position is requiring CESO eligibility.
c. I had filed an initial protest at CSC on the appointment of the person citing the position is not vacant. This includes informing formally the Management and Malacanang on the status of my appointment.
d, Despite this, Malacanang appointed the person, and the management padlocked my office.
e. As an immediate legal action, i filed through my lawyer quo warranto to the respondent (newly appointed) and nominal respondents were the Executive Secretary, 2 heads of the agency that implemented the order.
f. The judge dismiss the case on two grounds: firstly, wrong venue--because we used the office address of the three respondents, instead of their residential. Secondly, suit against the state citing the state is immune from suit without its consent.
g. What shall we do? what are the legal jurisprudence we can use...I am now heavily burden because of the illegal termination.
h. The case was dismissed for technicality, the main case is not yet heard. What are our other legal remedies...did we file the correct case?
Last edited by tpampatuan on Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:24 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : other question)