Case Title

Juco vs. NLRC

Facts Juco was project engineer of NHC but was dismissed for being implicated in a crime of theft and/or malversation of public funds Juco then filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the DOLE but labor arbiter dismissed complaint on ground that NLRC had no jurisdiction Case was elevated to NLRC which reversed labor arbiters decision Juco then filed with the CSC a complaint for illegal dismissal but was dismissed bec. NHC argued CSC had no jurisdiction Maturan was appointed as patrolman of San Francisco S. Leyte, then promoted as police sergeant, all appointment provisional which was renewed. Respondent Mayor Maglana then suspended petitioner because of two pending criminal cases against him, and instructed the latter to tender his resignation pursuant to a LOI (Letter of Ins.) No. 14 from the President, which resignation was approved Criminal charges against petitioner were dismissed and Napolcom chairman stated that the preventive suspension has been lifted and petitioner was directed to report for duty but Chief of Police Refused to accept petitioner Petitioner filed a claim for back salaries, but court said petitioners appointment was provisional and he can be removed at any time by the appointing power Marino Corpus, holding position as Special Assistant to the Governor, declared by the President as highly technical, was administratively charged with dishonesty, incompetence, neglect of duty, etc. Corpus was then suspended by the Monetary Board (investigation proved him innocent), and upon a formal statement of Governor Cuaderno that he has lost his confidence in the respondent, such position being primarily confidential and highly technical in nature, the MB then considered Corpus as resigned

Issues/ Held
Whether NLRC or CSC has jurisdiction over Jucos case - NHC is a government owned and controlled corporation organized in accordance with the Uniform Charter of Govt. Corp - Considering that NHA had been incorporated under Act 1459, the former corporation law, its a GOCC whose employees are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code - Having been incorporated under the Corporation Law, and governed by the Labor Code, it comes under the jurisdiction of the NLRC Whether or not petitioner shall be reinstated to his position as police sergeant - Maturan cannot be resinstated to his former post - He was not qualified for the position nor was he possessed with any civil service eligibility for any position in the government. - Lack of civil service eligibility makes his appointment temporary and is dependent entirely upon the pleasure of the appointing power. - When petitioner received his appointment he had no eligibility and what is required is a new appointment, not merely a reinstatement - Mayor cannot be compelled to appoint him because such power of the Mayor is discretionary

Maturan vs. Maglana

Corpus vs. Cuaderno

Whether or not the petitioner was justly removed from office - No. The loss of confidence ground was a clear afterthought resorted to when the charges of he investigation were not proved. - Tenure of officials with primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence but this is not so with those highly technical positions which require special skills and qualifications - Constitution clearly distinguished highly technical from primarily confidential posts, and to apply the loss of confidence rule to the

According to Central Bank and MB, officers of highly technical positions may be removed any time for lack of confidence by the appointing power

NASECO vs. NLRC

highly technical post is to ignore and erase the differentiation expressly made by the Consti. A position may be declared both highly technical and confidential, but such is not the category of the petitioners position GOCCs included in the civil service under the 1987 Consti are only those created by special law, or given legislative charters, and not those established under the Corporation Code Civil service does not include GOCCs organized as subsidiaries of GOCCs under the general corporation law.

Chua vs. CSC

Pineda vs. Claudio

RA 6683, which provides benefits for early retirement and voluntary separation from the govt. service as well as for involuntary separation due to reorganizations was enacted Petitioner Chua believing she is qualified to avail of said benefits filed an application in the Natl. Irrig. Admin. Which denied the claim Petitioner recoursed to the CSC but was denied bec. Petitioenrs employment is co-terminous with the project per appointment papers and is not a regular employee of the NIA for she belongs to the noncareer service which is inherently temporary Petitioner filed suit before the SC alleging that she met the requirement that an applicant must be on a casual, emergency, temporary or regular employment status Upon death of Col. Tunaliuan, the position of Chief of Polic of Pasay becamse vacant Pasay Mayor Claudio appointed Villa, a state prosecutor, but respondent Commissioner of CSC held the appointment in abeyance until other person who have preferential right to appointment have been considered One of them is Pineda, deputy

Whether or not petitioner, a co-terminous employee, shall be entitled to the benefits of RA 6683 - A co-terminous employee is a noncareer civil servant, like casual and emergency employees, and there is no reason why the latter are extended such benefits but the former are not - RA 6683 expressly extends its benefits for early retirement to regular, temporary, casual and emergency employees - Denial by respondent is unreasonable as petitioner had filed an application for voluntary retirement within a reasonable period and is therefore entitled to the benefits of said law.

Whether or not Claudio is mandated to promote Pineda to the vacant position of Chief of Police - It is neither mandatory nor ministerial for Claudio to promote Pineda to the vacant position - Sec. 23 does not require that vacancies must be filled by promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment or certification, in that order

Monsanto vs. Factoran

Garcia vs. Commision on Audit

chief of police, a person next-inrank entitled to promotional preference for the position of chief of police before others may be considered for transfer, reinstatement, reemployment or certification. Pineda filed action contending that under Sec. 23 of the Civil Service Act, he should be promoted as the employee next in rank Claudio contended that Sec. 8 of the Police Act states that chief of police may be appointed from list of eligibles certified by the CSC Sandiganbayan convicted petitioner Monsanto (then assistant treasurer of Calbayog City) of the crime of estafa thru falsification of public documents SC affirmed her conviction but Pres. Marcos extended her absolute pardon She then requested to Calbayog City treasurer that she be restored to her former post Matter was brought to Deputy exec. Sec. Factoran and held that acquittal not absolute pardon is the only ground for reinstatement and entitlement to payment of his salaries Petitioner is also liable for civil indemnity Petitioner was a Supervising lineman in the Bureau of Telecomms and was dismissed from service based on Admin. Case for the loss of several telegraph poles Based on same facts a criminal case for qualified theft was filed against petitioner but he was acquitted of the offense charged He sought reinstatement and pleaded to the President for executive clemency which was granted Petitioner then claimed with COA his back salaries from date of dismissal but COA denied stating clemency did not provide payment of back salaries and that there is no reinstatement in service

It only purports that as far as practicable the person next in line should be promoted, otherwise the vacancy may be filled by TRRC, as the appointing power sees fit Principle of seniority and next in rank applies only to cases of promotion Where appointing power chooses to fill the vacancy not by promotion but by TRRC, he is under no duty whatsoever to explain his action, for the law does not require him.

Whether or not petitioner who has been granted absolute pardon entitled to reinstatement to her former position without need of new appointment - SC does not agree that pardon blots out the guilt of an individual and that once he is absolved he should be treated as if he were innocent - Pardon does not restore convicted felon to public office although it restores eligibility for appointment to that office - To regain former post, petitioner must re apply and undergo usual procedure for new appointment Petitioner still liable civilly

Whether or not petitioner is entitled to reinstament and payment of backwages pursuant to the grant of executive clemency - When a person is pardoned because he did not truly commit the offense, he is relieved from all punitive consequences of his criminal act, restoring him to clean character prior to find of guilt - Acquittal of petitioner was founded not on lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt but on the fact that petitioner did not commit the offense - Executive clemency obliterated adverse effects of admin decision and directs reinstatement of petitioner, rendered automatic by grant of pardon - Petitioner is restored to his office ipso facto and entitles him to back wages - Petitioner awarded full back wages from date illegally dismissed to reinstatement

SSS Employees Assoc. vs. CA

SSSEA went on strike after SSS failed to act on the Unions demands SSS filed with RTC of Quezon City a complaint for damages with injunction against petitioner alleging that SSSEA staged an illegal strike and barricaded the entrance preventing non-striking employees from reporting for work and transacting business Complaint prayed to enjoin strike, strikers ordered to return to work, and to pay damages, and strike to be declared illegal Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss alleging trial court lacked jurisdiction since it laid with the DOLE or NLRC since it involves a labor dispute

Trade Unions of the Phils and Allied Services vs. Natl. Housing Corp.

TUPAS filed petition for conduct of certification election with the Reg. Office of DOLE to determine exclusive bargaining representative of workers in NHC Petition was dismissed by arbiter holding that NHC being a government-owned and / or controlled corporation its employees are prohibited to form, enjoin or assist any labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining pursuant to the labor code

Festejo vs. Fernando

Carmen Festejo was the owner of 9 hectares of land and the Director of Bureau of Public Works, without consent and knowledge of plaintiff Festejo, and against her express objection, unlawfully took possession of portions of the land

Whether or not employees of SSS have right to Strike Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction - Employees of SSS are covered by the prohibition against strikes pursuant to Memo Circular No. 6 issued by CSC which enjoin all govt officers and employees from staging strikes, demonstrations and other forms of mass action which result in temporary stoppage of public service - 19871 consti provides that civil service embraces GOCCs with original charters - SSS is a GOCC with an original charter created by RA 1161, and therefore its employees are part of civil service, covered by the CSC memo prohibiting strikes - Labor Code provides that terms and conditions of employment of govt. employees shall be governed by the civil service law, and clearly, NLRC has no jurisdiction Whether or not NHC employees are prohibited to form, join, or assist any labor organization for purposes of collective bargaining - The workers of NHC undoubtedly have the right to from unions or employees organizations explicitly recognized and granted to employees in both the governmental and private sectors - This guarantee is reiterated in the 2nd paragraph of section 3, article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights which mandates that the State shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations - There is no impediment to the holding of a certification election among the workers of NHC for it is clear that they are covered by the Labor Code, being a GOCC without an original charter Whether or not respondent can be sued - Yes. For the trespass on plaintiffs land, defendant committed acts outside the scope of his authority - Ordinarily, the officer/employee committing the tort is personally liable and maybe sued as any other

and caused an irrigation canal to be constructed to the damage and prejudice of plaintiff Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of State Immunity

American Tobacco Co. vs. Director of Lands

Petitioner ATC challenged the validity of Rule 168 of the Revised Rules of Practice, authorizing the Director of patents to designate any ranking official of said office to hear inter partes proceedings These proceedings refer to the hearing of opposition to the registration of mark or trade names interference proceedings When the Rules of Trade mark Practices were amended, the Director of Patents delegated the hearing of petitioners to hearing officers. Petitioners filed objections alleging that amended rules is illegal and void because the Director of Patents must personally hear and decide cases

citizen and held answerable for whatever injury/damage results from his tortuous act - If an officer, even while acting under color of his office exceeds the power conferred on him by law, he cannot shelter himself under the plea that he is a public agent Whether or not Director of Patents has authority to designate any official to hear inter partes proceedings - Yes. Under Sec. 3, RA 165, the Director of Patents is empowered to obtain the assistance of technical, scientific or other qualified officers or employees of other departments, bureaus, offices, agencies and instrumentalities of the govt. when deemed necessary - There is no provision negativiting the existence of such authority - The rule that requires administrative officers to exercise his own judgment and discretion does not preclude him from utilizing as a matter of practical administrative procedure the aid of subordinates to investigate and report to him facts to make his decisions.

HNSY