August 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > August 2008 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 160197 : August 12, 2008] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V. BIENVENIDO MAPAYE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC, BR. 55, FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION, LUCENA CITY, AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF LUCENA, REPRESENTED BY CITY MAYOR RAMON V. TALAGA, JR. :
[G.R. No. 160197 : August 12, 2008]
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V. BIENVENIDO MAPAYE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE RTC, BR. 55, FOURTH JUDICIAL REGION, LUCENA CITY, AND THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF LUCENA, REPRESENTED BY CITY MAYOR RAMON V. TALAGA, JR.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 12, 2008
G.R. No. 160197 (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. BIENVENIDO MAPAYE, In his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 55, Fourth Judicial Region, Lucena City, and THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF LUCENA, represented by City Mayor Ramon V. Talaga, Jr.) - This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing and seeking to reverse and set aside: (i) the Decision[2] dated December 17, 2002 of the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), dismissing for lack of merit, petitioner Civil Service Commission (CSC)'s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition; and (ii) the Resolution[3] dated September 16, 2003 denying reconsideration of said decision.
This case stems from a Petition for a Declaratory Relief, Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction, and Revocation of Appointments filed by respondent City Government of Lucena, represented by Mayor Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr. (Lucena City) against Rodolfo G. Racoma, Nelson Singson, Ma. Christine Eleazar, Irene Juvy Cena, Roderick Abella and Geronimo Laresma (Racoma et al.) and the Commission on Elections and the CSC, docketed as Special Civil Action No. 2002-162, and raffled off to the sala of respondent Hon. Bienvenido Mapaye, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Fourth Judicial Region, Lucena City. In an Order[5] dated April 30, 2002, the trial court declared as null and void: (i) the appointments of Racoma et al.; (ii) Comelec Resolution No. 3141, insofar as the portion thereof covers only the election ban from April 12 to May 10, 2000 on appointments or hiring of new employees, instead of the period from April 12 to May 11, 2000 in violation of Sec. 261(g) of the Omnibus Election Code; and (iii) the Order of the CSC approving the appointments of Racoma et al.
On August 4, 2002, the CSC filed a Petition for Cerliorari and Prohibition[6] under Rule 65 with the CA assailing the order of the trial court for being issued beyond jurisdiction. As mentioned above, the same was dismissed by the Seventh Division of the CA in the assailed decision and resolution. Hence, the CSC filed the instant petition.
On February 20, 2004, the CSC filed a Manifestation[7] before this Court that a Decision[8] dated November 28, 2003 has been rendered by the Special Fourth Division of the CA granting the appeal filed by Racoma et al., reversing and setting aside the order of the trial court. In the said decision, the CA upheld the validity of the appointments of Racoma et al. and ruled that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the matter. The Court takes judicial notice that the petition assailing the said decision tiled by Lucena City with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 165540, entitled City Government of Lucena, represented by City Mayor Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, Rodolfo G. Racoma, Nelson D. Singson, Ma. Christine Eleazar, Irene Juvy Cena and Geronimo Laresma was dismissed by this Court in its Resolution dated November 9, 2004. The said resolution has, on December 28, 2004, become final and executory pursuant to the Entry of Judgment issued by this Court.
Considering that the issues raised in the petition have been rendered moot and academic by the said Resolution and its Entry of Judgment, the Court resolves to DENY the petition.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED for having been rendered moot and academic."
G.R. No. 160197 (CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. BIENVENIDO MAPAYE, In his capacity as the Presiding Judge of the RTC, Br. 55, Fourth Judicial Region, Lucena City, and THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF LUCENA, represented by City Mayor Ramon V. Talaga, Jr.) - This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing and seeking to reverse and set aside: (i) the Decision[2] dated December 17, 2002 of the Seventh Division of the Court of Appeals (CA), dismissing for lack of merit, petitioner Civil Service Commission (CSC)'s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition; and (ii) the Resolution[3] dated September 16, 2003 denying reconsideration of said decision.
This case stems from a Petition for a Declaratory Relief, Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus with Preliminary Injunction, and Revocation of Appointments filed by respondent City Government of Lucena, represented by Mayor Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr. (Lucena City) against Rodolfo G. Racoma, Nelson Singson, Ma. Christine Eleazar, Irene Juvy Cena, Roderick Abella and Geronimo Laresma (Racoma et al.) and the Commission on Elections and the CSC, docketed as Special Civil Action No. 2002-162, and raffled off to the sala of respondent Hon. Bienvenido Mapaye, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Fourth Judicial Region, Lucena City. In an Order[5] dated April 30, 2002, the trial court declared as null and void: (i) the appointments of Racoma et al.; (ii) Comelec Resolution No. 3141, insofar as the portion thereof covers only the election ban from April 12 to May 10, 2000 on appointments or hiring of new employees, instead of the period from April 12 to May 11, 2000 in violation of Sec. 261(g) of the Omnibus Election Code; and (iii) the Order of the CSC approving the appointments of Racoma et al.
On August 4, 2002, the CSC filed a Petition for Cerliorari and Prohibition[6] under Rule 65 with the CA assailing the order of the trial court for being issued beyond jurisdiction. As mentioned above, the same was dismissed by the Seventh Division of the CA in the assailed decision and resolution. Hence, the CSC filed the instant petition.
On February 20, 2004, the CSC filed a Manifestation[7] before this Court that a Decision[8] dated November 28, 2003 has been rendered by the Special Fourth Division of the CA granting the appeal filed by Racoma et al., reversing and setting aside the order of the trial court. In the said decision, the CA upheld the validity of the appointments of Racoma et al. and ruled that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the matter. The Court takes judicial notice that the petition assailing the said decision tiled by Lucena City with this Court, docketed as G.R. No. 165540, entitled City Government of Lucena, represented by City Mayor Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, Rodolfo G. Racoma, Nelson D. Singson, Ma. Christine Eleazar, Irene Juvy Cena and Geronimo Laresma was dismissed by this Court in its Resolution dated November 9, 2004. The said resolution has, on December 28, 2004, become final and executory pursuant to the Entry of Judgment issued by this Court.
Considering that the issues raised in the petition have been rendered moot and academic by the said Resolution and its Entry of Judgment, the Court resolves to DENY the petition.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DENIED for having been rendered moot and academic."
Very truly yours.
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-25.
[2] Id. at 27-30; penned by Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam, concurred in by Justices Ruben T. Reyes (now Supreme Court Justice) and Remedios Salazar-Fernando.
[3] Id. at 32.
[4] CA rollo, pp. 43-64.
[5] Id. at 24-33.
[6] Id. at 1-23.
[7] Rollo, pp. 67-71.
[8] Id. at 73-81; penned by Justice Elvi John S. Asuncion, concurred in by Justices Renato C. Dacudao and Lucas P. Bersamin.