ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1995 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 93117 August 1, 1995 - LOPEZ SUGAR CORPORATION v. SECRETARY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-836 August 2, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JESUS V. MATAS

  • OCA I.P.I. No. 95-12-P August 3, 1995 - MARILES I. VILLANUEVA v. RODOLFO B. POLLENTES

  • G.R. No. 88326 August 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM A. FULINARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102422 August 3, 1995 - ANTONIO CATATISTA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113290-91 August 3, 1995 - PEDRO O. PALMERIA, SR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113521-31 August 3, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOLITO D. ESPINOZA

  • G.R. No. 93628 August 4, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDITHA S. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 97535 August 4, 1995 - MANILA ELECTRIC COMPANY v. LA CAMPANA FOOD PRODUCTS, INC.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-983 August 7, 1995 - GUILLERMA DE LOS SANTOS-REYES v. JUDGE CAMILO O. MONTESA

  • G.R. No. 106784 August 7, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLITO SALODAGA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter Nos. P-93-800 & P-93-800-A August 9, 1995 - RTC MAKATI MOVEMENT AGAINST GRAFT AND CORRUPTION v. INOCENCIO E. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 115132-34 August 9, 1995 - IMELDA R. MARCOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-880 August 11, 1995 - CENTRUM AGRI-BUSINESS REALTY CORPORATION v. BETHEL KATALBAS-MOSCARDON

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1243 August 11, 1995 - ANTONIO P. CHIN v. TITO G. GUSTILO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76801 August 11, 1995 - LOPEZ REALTY, INC., ET AL. v. FLORENTINA FONTECHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94979 August 11, 1995 - ALFONSO GABALDON CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97484 August 11, 1995 - SANTIAGO B. SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111289 August 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR TORRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113793 August 11, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN M. GANZAGAN, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-93-931 August 14, 1995 - VICENTE G. RUDAS v. LEONILA R. ACEDO

  • G.R. No. 99840 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. FEDERICO

  • G.R. No. 107994 August 14, 1995 - PHIL. AGRICULTURAL COMM’L. AND IND’L. WORKERS UNION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 108084 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIMOTEO SABAL

  • G.R. No. 109696 August 14, 1995 - THELMA P. OLEA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113219 August 14, 1995 - ANICETO G. MATEO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113652 August 14, 1995 - VICTORIANO A. CORMERO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113782-84 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO C. ALIVIADO

  • G.R. No. 114051 August 14, 1995 - DAVID INES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114692 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABNER MALUNES

  • G.R. No. 115022 August 14, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO D. REYES

  • G.R. No. 117014 August 14, 1995 - HONORIO SANTIAGO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118118 August 14, 1995 - ALFREDO GUIEB v. LUIS M. FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. 119617 August 14, 1995 - B. STA RITA AND CO., INC., ET. AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91852 August 15, 1995 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO., INC., ET AL. v. ASOCIACION DE AGRICULTORES DE TALISAY-SILAY, INC.

  • G.R. No. 100686 August 15, 1995 - PEPSI COLA DISTRIBUTORS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 111359 August 15, 1995 - CALTEX REGULAR EMPLOYEES v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC.

  • G.R. No. 110034 August 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AVELINO GAZMEN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113995 August 16, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAMALIEL T. PAYAWAL

  • G.R. No. 93728 August 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL HERRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107534 August 21, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL I. CABINTOY

  • G.R. No. 111091 August 21, 1995 - CLARO J. PRECLARO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117246 August 21, 1995 - BENIGNO MANUEL, ET AL. v. NICODEMO T. FERRER

  • G.R. No. 119891 August 21, 1995 - BEN STA. RITA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1108 August 23, 1995 - MARIANETTE VILLAREAL v. ROLANDO T. RARAMA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-87-104 August 23, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JOSE M. ESTACION, JR.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1270 August 23, 1995 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RENATO A. FUENTES

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-3-89-RTC August 23, 1995 - IN RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC BRANCH 16

  • G.R. No. 79968 August 23, 1995 - PETER RODRIGUEZ v. PROJECT 6 MARKET SERVICE COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88278 August 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DONALD BALLAGAN

  • G.R. No. 101690 August 23, 1995 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105455 August 23, 1995 - EXCELSA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110401 August 23, 1995 - EDGARDO GUEVARA, ET AL. v. HERMINIO I. BENITO

  • G.R. Nos. 113513-14 August 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY CONTE

  • G.R. Nos. 114061 & 113842 August 23, 1995 - KOREAN AIRLINES CO., LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 114841-42 August 23, 1995 - ATLANTIC GULF AND PACIFIC COMPANY OF MANILA, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114920 August 23, 1995 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 115987 August 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO REOVEROS

  • G.R. No. 116132-33 August 23, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO U. DELOVINO

  • G.R. No. 121234 August 23, 1995 - HUBERT J. P. WEBB v. RAUL E. DE LEON

  • Adm. Matter No. P-92-768 August 28, 1995 - CASIANO WENCESLAO v. RESTITUTO MADRAZO

  • G.R. No. 104664 August 28, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELYBOY O. SO

  • G.R. No. 111386 August 28, 1995 - METAL FORMING CORPORATION v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

  • G.R. No. 115407 August 28, 1995 - MIGUEL P. PANDERANGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118531 August 28, 1995 - JULIANA D. DEL ROSARIO v. JOB MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 107762 August 29, 1995 - ALBERTO S. ACENAS II v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113161 August 29, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOMA O. GOCE

  • G.R. No. 96125 August 31, 1995 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMBROSIO RONQUILLO

  • G.R. No. 111017 August 31, 1995 - BLISS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 113219   August 14, 1995 - ANICETO G. MATEO, ET  AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 113219. August 14, 1995.]

    ANICETO G. MATEO, MAXIMO SAN DIEGO, QUIRINO MATEO, DANIEL FRANCISCO, and LEONILA KUIZON, Petitioners, v. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. ARTURO A. MARAVE, and EDGAR STA. MARIA, Respondents.

    Aladdin F. Trinidad, for Petitioners.

    Jose Concepcion Javier for Javier Law Office for Respondents.


    SYLLABUS


    1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION. WITH SOLE JURISDICTION OVER ISSUES ON HIRING AND FIRING OF EMPLOYEES OF QUASI-PUBLIC CORPORATION. — There is no question, that MOWAD is a quasi public corporation created pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 198, known as the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, as amended. In Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission, the Court en banc ruled that employees of government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. Indeed, the established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and Regulations.

    2. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC OFFICE; REMEDY OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AGAINST ILLEGAL DISMISSAL. — Presidential Decree No. 807, Executive Order No. 292, and Rule II, Section 1 of Memorandum Circular No. 44 series of 1990 of the Civil Service Commission spell out the initial remedy of private respondent against illegal dismissal. They categorically provide that the party aggrieved by a decision, ruling, order, or action of an agency of the government involving termination of services may appeal to the Commission within fifteen (15) days. Thereafter, private respondent could go on certiorari to this Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if he still feels aggrieved by the ruling of the Civil Service Commission. So we held in Mancita v. Barcinas, viz: . . ." [N]o appeal lies from the decision of the Civil Service Commission, and that parties aggrieved thereby may proceed to this Court alone on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof, pursuant to Section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution. Mancita, however, no longer governs for under the present rule, Revised Administrative. Circular No. 1-91 as amended by Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 which took effect on June 1, 1995, final resolutions of the Civil Service Commission shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals. In any event, whether under the old rule or the present rule, Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of officers and employees covered by the Civil Service Law.


    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    Upon complaint of some Morong Water District (MOWAD) employees, Petitioners, all Board Members of MOWAD, conducted an investigation on private respondent Edgar Sta. Maria, then General Manager. 1 On December 13, 1992, private respondent was placed under preventive suspension and Maximo San Diego was designated in his place as Acting General Manager. He was later dismissed on January 7, 1993.

    On January 18, 1993, private respondent filed a Special Civil Action for Quo Warranto and Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction 2 before the Regional Trial Court of Rizal, Branch 78, challenging his dismissal by petitioners. The petition embodied three (3) causes of action. t reads:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

    x       x       x


    II-2 Petitioner is the General Manager of the MOWAD since August 1984 with concomitant security of tenure in office and could not be removed either temporarily or permanently, except for cause and only after compliance with the elementary rules of due process;

    II-3 However, on December 14, 1992, contrary to the tenets of justice and fairness, as well as for want of procedural due process, the respondents (petitioners) and members of the Board of Directors of the MOWAD have arbitrarily, whimsically, and unilaterally stopped and prohibited the petitioner from exercising his rights and performing his duties as General Manager of the MOWAD and, in his place, have designated the respondent (petitioner) Maximo San Diego as Acting General manager . . . .

    II-4 On December 15, 1992, while petitioner was out of office on official travel, . . . thru stealth and strategy, the respondents have conspired and helped one another in removing the petitioner from the Office of the General Manager of the MOWAD by forcibly destroying its door and locked it with a replaced door-knob and all attempts on his part to gain access and entry proved futile; . . .

    SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

    x       x       x


    III-2 On January 7, 1993, . . . in confabulation with his co-respondents and members of the Board of Directors of the MOWAD, the respondent Aniceto G. Mateo slapped the petitioner with an Order terminating his services as General Manger . . .;

    III-5 Petitioner has a clear right to the Office of General Manager of the MOWAD which is being usurped or unlawfully held by respondent Maximo San Diego in conspiracy with his co-respondents; . . .

    THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

    x       x       x


    IV-1-a Petitioner is entitled to the relief mandated, and the whole or part of such relief consists in restraining the commission or continuance of the acts complained of more particularly the continuous acts of respondents in stopping and prohibiting him from exercising his rights and performing his duties as General Manager of the MOWAD and from stopping and prohibiting him to gain access and entry to office." 3

    Petitioners, in turn, moved to dismiss the case on two (2) grounds: (1) the court had no jurisdiction over disciplinary actions of government employees which is vested exclusively in the Civil Service Commission; and (2) quo warranto was not the proper remedy. 4 Respondent Judge Arturo Marave denied the Motion to Dismiss on April 26, 1993, and the Motion for Reconsideration on June 9, 1993. 5

    Petitioners then elevated the matter to this Court through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 which was referred to respondent Court of Appeals for adjudication. In its Decision, dated November 24, 1993, respondent Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit, and in its Resolution, dated January 11, 1994, denied the Motion for Reconsideration. 6

    The main issue in this petition for review is whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Rizal has jurisdiction over Sp. Civil Case No. 014-M involving dismissal of an employee of a quasi-public corporation.

    We hold that it has no jurisdiction.

    There is no question that MOWAD is a quasi-public corporation created pursuant to Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 198, known as the Provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, as amended. 7 In Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission, 8 the Court en banc ruled that employees of government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter fall under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    "As early as Baguio Water District v. Trajano et, al., We already ruled that a water district is a corporation created pursuant to a special law — P.D. No. 198, as amended, and as such its officers and employees are covered by the Civil Service Law.

    In another case (Hagonoy Water District v. NLRC), We ruled once again that local water districts are quasi-public corporations whose employees belong to the Civil Service." (Citations omitted)

    Indeed, the established rule is that the hiring and firing of employees of government-owned and controlled corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and Regulations. 9

    Presidential Decree No. 807, Executive Order No. 292, 10 and Rule II, section 1 of Memorandum Circular No. 44 series of 1990 of the Civil Service Commission spell out the initial remedy of private respondent against illegal dismissal. They categorically provide that the party aggrieved by a decision, ruling, order, or action of an agency of the government involving termination of services may appeal to the Commission within fifteen (15) days. Thereafter, private respondent could go on certiorari to this Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if he still feels aggrieved by the ruling of the Civil Service Commission. So we held in Mancita v. Barcinas, 11 viz:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    " [N]o appeal lies from the decision of the Civil Service Commission, * and that parties aggrieved thereby may proceed to this Court alone on certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof, pursuant to section 7, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution. We quote.

    ‘SECTION 7. Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof.’

    The Civil Service Commission, under the Constitution, is the single arbiter of all contests relating to the civil service and as such, its judgments are unappealable and subject only to this Court’s certiorari judgment."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Mancita, however, no longer governs for under the present rule, Revised Circular No. 1-91 as amended by Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95 which took effect on June 1, 1995, final resolutions of the Civil Service Commission shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals. In any event, whether under the old rule or the present rule, Regional Trial Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain cases involving dismissal of officers and employees covered y the Civil Service Law.

    IN VIEW HEREOF, the petition is GRANTED and the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals dated November 24, 1993 and its Resolution dated January 1, 1994 in CA G.R. SP No. 31530 are ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. No Costs.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Mendoza and Francisco, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Petition, p. 5; Rollo, p. 11.

    2. Docketed as Sp. Civil Case No. 014-M.

    3. Petition, pp. 1-4; Rollo, pp. 38-41.

    4. Rollo, pp. 16-19.

    5. Annex "A" and Annex "B."cralaw virtua1aw library

    6. See CA G.R. SP No. 31530, Decision of the Sixteenth Division, composed of Justice Jorge S. Imperial, Chairman, Justice Eduardo G. Montenegro and Justice Pacita Canizares-Nye (ponente), Members.

    7. P.D. 1479, which went into effect on June 11, 1978, amended some of the provisions of P.D. 198.

    8. G.R. Nos. 95237-38, September 13, 1991, 201 SCRA 593.

    9. Zamboanga City Water District v. Buat, G.R. No. 104389, May 27, 1994, 232 SCRA 587.

    10. P.D. 807, section 39, and E.O. No. section 49(1).

    11. G.R. No. 98120, December 22, 1992, 216 SCRA 772 citing Lopez, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 87119, April 16, 1991, 195 SCRA 777; Dario v. Mison, G.R. Nos. 81954, 81967, 82023, 83737, 85310, 85335, & 86241, August 8, 1989, 176 SCRA 84.

    * Republic Act No. 6656, Section 8. The provision reads: "Sec. 8. An officer or employee who is still not satisfied with the decision of the appointing authority may further appeal within ten (10) days from receipt thereof to the Civil Service Commission which shall render a decision thereon within thirty (30) days and whose decision shall be final and executory."

    G.R. No. 113219   August 14, 1995 - ANICETO G. MATEO, ET  AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED