G. R. NO. 92561 September 12, 1990 Secretary Oscar Orbos of the DOTC vs. CSC and Nerio Madarang
FACTS: Guido C. Agdon and Alfonso Magnayon were appointed to the position of Head Telecommunication Engineer, range 74. Nerio Madarang, who was also appointed in the position of Supervising Telecommunication Engineer, range 12, questioned the appointment of Agon and Magnayon by filing an appeal with the Reorganization Appeals Board of the DOTC but it was dismissed for lack of merit. He then appealed it to the CSC which the CSC revoke the appointments of Agon and Magnayon for the contested positions and directed the appointment of Madarang to the said position. ISSUE: Whether or not the CSC acted in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction when it ordered the appointment of Nerio Madarang to the contested position. RULING: Yes, from the provision of Par. H, Sec. 9 of P.D. No. 807, otherwise known as the “Civil Service Decree of the Philippines” clearly stated that the CSC has the power to approve or disapprove an appointment and not the power to make the appointment itself or to direct that such appointment be made by the appointing authority. The CSC can only inquire into the eligibility of the person chosen to fill a vacant position and it finds the person qualified it must so attest. The duty of the CSC is to attest appointments. That function being discharged, its participation in the appointment process ceases. The Court also pronounced in no uncertain terms that the CSC has no authority to revoke an appointment on the ground that another person is more qualified for a particular position. The Court likewise held that the CSC does not have the authority to direct the appointment of a substitute of its choice.
G.R. NO. 130685 March 21, 2000 Felix Uy, et.al vs. COA
FACTS: Petitioners were permanent employees of the provincial Engineering Office who were dismissed by the governor allegedly to scale down the operations of that office. Petitioner filed for a petition for reinstatement before the Merit Systems protection Board (MSPB). MSPB held that the reduction in work force was not done in accordance with civil service rules and regulation, and ordering the reinstatement of petitioner.
ISSUE: 1. Whether or not A.O. No. 88-01 streamlining the personnel complements of the PEO is in accordance with Civil Service Laws, Rules and Regulation.
RULING: NO. it has been concede that reduction in force due to lack of funds is a valid ground for terminating the services of an employee but this is subject to some limitations. There is no showing that these employees were compared in terms of relative fitness, efficiency and length of service. The manifest repugnance of the action taken by Governor Paredes was further exacerbated by the issuance of the highly questionable Memorandum Order No. 3-A s.1989 dated March 20, 1989 which provides for the hiring of casuals under the façade of exigency of the public service. It was also a blatant violation of Section 14 of the Rules on Personnel Actions and Policies which succinctly states that the names of permanent employees laid off shall be entered in a reemployment list for the appropriate occupation. The list, arranged in the order of the employee’s retention credit, shall be kept by the Department of agency where the reduction took place and copy thereof shall be furnished the Commission. They shall certify for purposes of reemployment from such list as the opportunity for reemployment arises.
G.R. No. 178678 April 16, 2009 DR. HANS CHRISTIAN M. SENERES vs. COA
FACTS: Dr. Hans Christian M. Señeres filed a Petition for Certiorari for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to nullify and enjoin the implementation of the Resolution dated July 19, 2007 of the COMELEC which declared respondent Melquiades Robles as the President of BUHAY.
ISSUES: Whether or not the COMELEC acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing its challenged Resolution dated June 19, 2007, which declared respondent Robles as the duly authorized representative of BUHAY, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law except the instant petition. RULING: The COMELEC affirmed that Robles Certification of Nomination was valid. As a general rule, officers and directors of a corporation hold over after the expiration of their terms until such time as their successors are elected or appointed. So it must be an act of Robles in serving as a hold-over BUHAY president, among this act was the submission of the nomination certificate for the May 14, 2007 elections. Since Señeres failed to file a petition for quo warranto before House of the Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) within ten (10) days from receipt of the July 19, 2007 declaring the validity of Robles Certificate of Nomination, said Resolution of the COMELEC had already become final and executory. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
SANTOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS GR No. 139792, 22 November 2000
FACTS:
This is a petition for review on certiorari wherein petitioner assails the decision of 19 August 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48301, which held that petitioner’s separation pay under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7924 should be limited to the number of years of his service in the Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) only, excluding his years of service as judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City for which he has already been given retirement gratuity and pension. ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner’s separation pay under Section 11 of R.A. No. 7924 should be limited to the number of years of his service in the Metropolitan Manila Authority (MMA) only, excluding his years of service as judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City for which he has already been given retirement gratuity and pension. RULING:
The petitioner cannot take refuge under the second paragraph of Section 8 of Article IX-B of the Constitution, which provides: Pensions or gratuities shall not be considered as additional, double, or indirect compensation. A retiree receiving pension or gratuity can continue to receive such pension or gratuity even if he accepts another government position to which compensation is attached. Indeed, the retirement benefits which petitioner had received or have been receiving under R.A. No. 910, as amended, do not constitute double compensation. He could continue receiving the same even if after his retirement he had been receiving salary from the defunct MMA as Director III thereof. This is but just because said retirement benefits are rewards for his services as MeTC Judge, while his salary was his compensation for his services as Director III of the MMA. However, to credit his years of service in the Judiciary in the computation of his separation pay under R.A. No. 7924 notwithstanding the fact that he had received or has been receiving the retirement benefits under R.A. No. 910, as amended, would be to countenance double compensation for exactly the same services, i.e ., his services as MeTC Judge. Such would run counter to the policy of this Court against double compensation for exactly the same services.[7] More important, it would be in violation of the first paragraph of Section 8 of Article IX-B of the Constitution, which proscribes additional, double, or indirect compensation. Said provision reads: No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double, or indirect compensation, unless specifically authorized by law. Section 11 of R.A. No. 7924 does not specifically authorize payment of additional compensation for years of government service outside of the MMA. WHEREFORE , finding no reversible error in the judgment appealed from, the petition in this case is DENIED for want of merit, and the decision of 19 August 1999 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 48301 is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
