Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > March 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-29588 March 18, 1969 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-29588. March 18, 1969.]

ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ETC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ETC., ET AL., Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; CONTEMPT OF COURT; COURT REFRAINS FROM FINDING THAT RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER COMMITTED CONTEMPT. — Considering that it has not been shown that respondent Commissioner, who acted in consultation with the Solicitor General, wilfully disobeyed the final judgment of this Court, the Court, with the expectation that respondent Commissioner will now act in accordance with the tenor of the Judgment as spelled out in this resolution, will refrain from making a finding that respondent Commissioner committed contempt of court.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:



Before Us for resolution is the motion of petitioner Gregorio A. Ejercito charging the respondent Commissioner of Civil Service with contempt of this Court. The charge, in substance, is that said respondent thru indirection failed or refused to obey the final judgment of this Court which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered: 1. commanding respondent Civil Service Commissioner forthwith to approve the appointment of Gregorio A. Ejercito as City Legal Officer of Manila and release the same; and 2. commanding respondent Civil Service Commissioner to act on the 28 appointments of the staff of the City Legal Officer, mentioned on page 2 of this decision, within 30 days from date of their re-submission to the Civil Service Commission. No special pronouncement as to costs."cralaw virtua1aw library

From the motion, opposition, reply, rejoinder and answer to rejoinder, filed by the parties, as well as from the arguments during the hearing, it appears undisputed that purportedly in obedience to Our decision, respondent Commissioner approved as provisional with conditions the appointment of petitioner Ejercito under Section 24(c) of the Civil Service Law, fixing January 11, 1969 as the effective date thereof, and returned "without action" the appointments of the twenty-eight other petitioners on the ground that no merit and promotion plan for the City of Manila had as yet been received by the Civil Service Commission.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

For purposes of the motion for contempt, We find that in view of the reasons stated in Our decision, the approval of petitioner Ejercito’s appointment as "provisional" ignored Our finding that said petitioner was qualified for the position to which he was appointed; hence, the qualification of the appointment as provisional, effective January 11, 1969, made by respondent Commissioner, must be considered as non-existent, considering that the character of the appointment extended by Mayor Villegas to said petitioner was a "Promotion," which is permanent, the appointment "to take effect as of January 1, 1968." Under Our decision, the Commissioner of Civil Service, in approving petitioner Ejercito’s appointment, could not give it any other character.

As regards the appointments of the twenty-eight other petitioners, as to whom We consider petitioner Ejercito’s reply dated January 31, 1969 as their own motion to compel respondent Commissioner to act in accordance with our decision, We also find that in returning said appointments "without action," respondent Commissioner failed to comply with the letter and spirit of Our decision. It is obvious that what We ordered respondent Civil Service Commissioner to do was to approve said appointments after processing the same and verifying that the appointees are civil service eligibles and qualified for the positions to which they were respectively appointed, taking into account the character of each appointment and the date it was to take effect. By virtue of the fact that said appointments were yet to be processed. We did not command respondent Commissioner to approve outright the said twenty-eight appointments, as We had done in petitioner Ejercito’s case, but instead to act on said appointments within thirty (30) days, i.e., to process and approve them upon verification of the appointees’ qualification and eligibility and in the contrary case to disapprove them.

However, considering that it has not been shown that respondent Commissioner, who acted in consultation with the Solicitor General, willfully disobeyed the final judgment of this Court, the Court, with the expectation that respondent Commissioner will now act in accordance with the tenor of the judgment as spelled out in this resolution, will refrain from making a finding that respondent Commissioner committed contempt of court.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the motion charging respondent Civil Service Commissioner in contempt of court is denied. However, said respondent is hereby ordered: (a) to approve the promotional appointment of Gregorio A. Ejercito as City Legal Officer effective January 1, 1968, under Section 24(b) of the Civil Service Law, the approval to be given within five days from date of re-submission of the appointment to the Civil Service Commission; and (b) to approve the appointments of the twenty-eight members of the staff of the City Legal Officer upon processing and verification that the appointees are civil service eligibles and qualified for the positions to which they were respectively appointed taking into account the character of each appointment and the date it was to take effect, the approval to be given within ten days from date of re-submission of the appointments to the Civil Service Commission.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






March-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26430 March 11, 1969 - ROSA GONZALEZ VDA. DE PALANCA, ET AL. v. CHUA KENG KIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29588 March 18, 1969 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26443 March 25, 1969 - MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PEDRO C. TANJUATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26770 & L-26771 March 25, 1969 - SAN ILDEFONSO ELECTRIC PLANT, INC. v. BALIUAG ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24985 March 27, 1969 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. BERTITO D. DADIVAS

  • G.R. No. L-24399 March 28, 1969 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TEMPONGKO

  • G.R. Nos. L-24634 & L-24635 March 28, 1969 - UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24699 March 28, 1969 - ABIGUEL REYES-GREGORIO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-24775 March 28, 1969 - MARIANO C. ATEGA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-24982 March 28, 1969 - BERNARDINA FLORENDO v. BONIFACIA FLORENDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25333 March 28, 1969 - CONSOLIDATED WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25338 March 28, 1969 - UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, LTD. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25439 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: CHUA TAN CHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25555 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MAGCAMIT

  • G.R. No. L-25618 March 28, 1969 - ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL. v. SIMEON GOPENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25878 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26153 March 28, 1969 - GUALBERTO TENCHAVEZ v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26487 March 28, 1969 - CONSTANTINA DE AGRAVIADOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26572 March 28, 1969 - MORALES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26932 March 28, 1969 - RUPERTO SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26953 March 28, 1969 - ZENAIDA MEDINA v. VENANCIA L. MAKABALI

  • G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969 - LUCIO V. GARCIA v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27100 March 28, 1969 - GERMAN S. MONTESA v. FELIPE ONOFRE DIRECTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27120 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN L. BOCAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27189 March 28, 1969 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MAERSK LINE FAR EAST SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27231 March 28, 1969 - ALFONSO VISITACION v. VICTOR MANIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28113 March 28, 1969 - MUNICIPALITY OF MALABANG, ET AL. v. PANGANDAPUN BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28734 March 28, 1969 - EMETERIO A. RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29199 March 28, 1969 - CLENIO L. ONDONA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29343 March 28, 1969 - FELIPE DE GUZMAN v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29610 March 28, 1969 - ALIM BALINDONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29458 March 28, 1969 - VIRGINIA F. PEREZ v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29684 March 28, 1969 - ARACELI V. MALAG v. RAMON DE LOS CIENTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29814 March 28, 1969 - SANTOS ANDAL, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29894 March 28, 1969 - JESUS W. LAZATIN v. RUPERTO KAPUNAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30058 March 28, 1969 - LUIS G. DE CASTRO v. JULIAN G. GINETE, ET AL.

  • Adm.Case No. 598 March 28, 1969 - AURORA SORIANO DELES v. VICENTE E. ARAGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20017 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: LEON TE POOT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21213 & L-21214 March 28, 1969 - GABRIEL ZARI, ET AL. v. JOSE R. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21291 March 28, 1969 - PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21528 & L-21529 March 28, 1969 - ROSAURO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21664 March 28, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MANOLO L. MADDELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21953 March 28, 1969 - ENCARNACION GATIOAN v. SIXTO GAFFUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22007 March 28, 1969 - NATIONAL MIRROR FACTORY v. ISIDRA SUNGA VDA. DE ANURE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22094 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TATLONGHARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22187 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO MAISUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22619 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: EMMANUEL LAI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22687 March 28, 1969 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22675 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PACIFIC COMMISSION HOUSE

  • G.R. No. L-22706 March 28, 1969 - JOAQUIN UYPUANCO, ET AL. v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22784 March 28, 1969 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. OSAKA SHOSEN KAISHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23253 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: PACITA CHUA v. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23591 March 28, 1969 - LEONCIO YU LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23654 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23792 March 28, 1969 - MODESTA JIMENEZ VDA. DE NOCETE v. PILAR OIRA

  • G.R. No. L-23942 March 28, 1969 - CARMEN DEVEZA, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.