FACTS:

The petitioner, Zorayda Alonzo, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-ibig Fund), received a complaint on December 17, 1992, from Celeste G. Al-Jawazneh, a contractor for Pag-ibig Fund employees. Al-Jawazneh complained about the respondent, Juliet Fajardo, the manager of the Administrative Services Department of Pag-ibig Fund, alleging oppressive treatment towards Al-Jawazneh's business and expressing concern about Fajardo's involvement in the bidding for transportation services. Upon receiving the complaint, Alonzo instructed the legal department to investigate the allegations against Fajardo. The legal department found a prima facie case against Fajardo and recommended her preventive suspension pending a formal investigation.

Formal charges were subsequently filed against Fajardo on December 28, 1992, alleging various misconducts, such as borrowing money from Al-Jawazneh and providing professional services to secure the transportation contract for Al-Jawazneh's business. Fajardo was also accused of collecting monthly fees for professional services until a service vehicle accident involving Al-Jawazneh occurred. Fajardo was given the opportunity to respond to the charges and indicate whether she wanted a formal investigation. In the meantime, she was placed under preventive suspension for a period of 90 days, commencing on December 29, 1992.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the respondent judge erred in granting a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the petitioner from preventively suspending the private respondent.

2. Whether or not there was a prima facie case against the private respondent warranting her preventive suspension.

RULING:

1. The respondent judge did not err in granting the writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the petitioner from preventively suspending the private respondent. The Court held that the requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction were present in this case, as the private respondent would suffer irreparable injury if she were to be preventively suspended. There was also a clear violation of her right to due process since the preventive suspension was imposed even before the formal investigation had commenced.

2. There was a prima facie case against the private respondent warranting her preventive suspension. The Court held that the allegations against the private respondent, if proven true, would constitute grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The recommendation of the legal department to preventively suspend the private respondent was based on a thorough investigation and supported by evidence. Therefore, the preventive suspension was justified in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

• The requirements for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction include the presence of irreparable injury and violation of the right to due process.

• Prima facie case is a reasonable ground for suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficient to warrant a prudent man in the belief that the party is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. It is based on a thorough investigation and supported by evidence.