RODOLFO R.

MAHINAY, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE
AUTHORITY, respondents.

April 30, 2008

FACTS:

Rodolfo R. Mahinay is seeking redress through a petition for certiorari, alleging that the Court of
Appeals (CA) committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing his case and supporting the Civil
Service Commission's (CSC) decision to terminate his employment. The case originated from
accusations by the Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) that Mahinay accepted unofficial fees
for police escort services. Despite admitting to receiving fees, Mahinay argued that it was a voluntary
allowance and not for personal gain. The PEZA initially imposed forced resignation, later modified to
dismissal by the CSC. Mahinay's appeal to the CA was dismissed for not adhering to the proper mode
of appeal, prompting his current petition claiming grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CA.

ISSUE:

whether or not the CA acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in dismissing petitioner's appeal by way of special civil action for certiorari on the ground that it was
the wrong mode of appeal and that the appeal was filed out of time.

RULING:

The petitioner challenges the Court of Appeals' rejection of his certiorari petition, arguing that it was
not a substitute for a lost appeal. The court disagrees, citing Rule 43, which specifies that the proper
mode of appeal from a quasi-judicial agency's decision is a petition for review. Certiorari is only
appropriate when there is no available appeal. The court finds the petitioner had the remedy of
appeal, dismissing his argument. The CA's denial of his motion for extension and the subsequent
dismissal of the petition are deemed proper. The petitioner's appeal was filed out of time, and thus,
the CSC's decision to dismiss him from service stands. The court emphasizes the consequences of
dismissal and grants the petitioner the monetary equivalent of accrued leave credits. In conclusion,
the petition is dismissed for lack of merit.
G.R. No. 144464 November 27, 2001

GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C. PAITIM, petitioner,

vs.
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

FACTS:

The case involves allegations against municipal employees, Zenaida Paitim and Gilda Cruz, for
dishonesty in a civil service exam. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) found them guilty in 1998,
leading to their dismissal from government service. The Court of Appeals upheld this decision in 1999.
The employees had earlier raised concerns about due process. The legal proceedings began in 1994
when a letter prompted an investigation. Despite their appeals, the CSC's resolution stood, resulting
in their dismissal from service.

ISSUE:

Whether the Court of Appeals erroneously affirmed the CSC's original jurisdiction to hear and decide
a complaint, irrespective of its source.

Whether the law exclusively grants appellate, not original, jurisdiction to the CSC in cases involving
the removal or dismissal of public officials.

Whether Administrative Case No. D3-95-052, not initiated by a private citizen, falls outside the CSC's
original jurisdiction.

Top of Form

RULING:

The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) lacked original
jurisdiction to hear and decide a complaint, irrespective of its source. It affirmed the CSC's authority to
handle cases it initiates, including those related to exam irregularities.

The court dismissed the petitioners' claim that the law exclusively grants appellate, not original,
jurisdiction to the CSC in cases involving the removal or dismissal of public officials. It affirmed the
CSC's original disciplinary jurisdiction over cases related to civil service examination anomalies.

The court rejected the petitioners' assertion that Administrative Case No. D3-95-052, not initiated by a
private citizen, falls outside the CSC's original jurisdiction. It affirmed the CSC's authority to have
original disciplinary jurisdiction over cases, even when the complaint is filed by the CSC itself.
In summary, the court affirmed the CSC's original jurisdiction, rejected the distinction between
appellate and original jurisdiction, and upheld the CSC's authority to hear Administrative Case No.
D3-95-052, even though it was not initiated by a private citizen.
G.R. No. 127182 January 22, 2001
HON. ALMA G. DE LEON, Chairman, HON. THELMA P. GAMINDE, Commissioner, and HON. RAMON
P. ERENETA, JR., Commissioner, Civil Service Commission, and SECRETARY RAFAEL M. ALUNAN,
III, Department of Interior and Local Government, petitioners,
vs.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS and JACOB F. MONTESA, respondents.

FACTS:
Despite not meeting the required qualifications, Atty. Jacob F. Montesa received an appointment in
1986, later securing permanent approval from the Civil Service Commission. In 1994, Secretary
Alunan's reassignment sparked Montesa's opposition, resulting in warnings and a 1995 order from
President Ramos to remove him from public service. Montesa legally challenged this, and the Court
of Appeals nullified the reassignment and order. The court directed Montesa's reinstatement with
full entitlements, a decision upheld in a subsequent 1996 modification.

ISSUE:
Whether the court committed a grave abuse of discretion by ordering Montesa's reinstatement,
despite Administrative Order No. 235 issued by the President of the Philippines, which dropped him
from the roster of public servants.
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, Atty. Jacob F. Montesa. The Court granted the
petition and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The April 25, 1996 Decision and the
November 20, 1996 Resolution of the Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside. The Civil Service
Commission's Resolution Nos. 953268 and 9555201, which had favored Montesa, were reinstated.
The Court did not find any grave abuse of discretion in ordering Montesa's reinstatement, despite
Administrative Order No. 235 issued by the President of the Philippines, which dropped him from
the roster of public servants. The ruling indicates that Montesa's lack of Career Executive Service
eligibility rendered his appointment temporary, allowing for his transfer or reassignment without
violating his right to security of tenure.
G.R. No. 131954 June 28, 2001
ASELA B. MONTECILLO, MARILOU JOAN V. ORTEGA and CHARRISHE DOSDOS, petitioners,
vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.
FACTS:
During a restructuring at the Metropolitan Cebu Water District (MCWD) in 1995, employees Asela B.
Montecillo, Marilou Joan V. Ortega, and Charrishe Dosdos applied for promotions. However, the Civil
Service Commission (CSC) rejected their appointments citing Memorandum Circular No. 22, Series of
1991, which categorized all Private Secretary positions as primarily confidential and co-terminous.
Disagreeing with this classification, the petitioners challenged the circular, asserting that it
improperly broadened the non-career service. Despite their objections, the CSC upheld the denial of
appointments, prompting the petitioners to file a special civil action in an attempt to invalidate the
CSC's decision.
ISSUE:
Whether Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 22, Series of 1991, is valid,
considering the petitioners' argument that it unduly amended and expanded the scope of the non-
career service under the Civil Service Decree, and whether the CSC exceeded its authority in issuing
the circular.
RULING:
The court clarified that its review was limited to determining whether the CSC committed grave
abuse of discretion. It defined "grave abuse of discretion" as a capricious and whimsical exercise of
judgment equivalent to a lack of jurisdiction.
The court rejected the petitioners' claims, stating that there was no clear and persuasive evidence
that the CSC grossly abused its discretion or exceeded its powers in issuing the circular. It
emphasized that the CSC was expressly empowered by law to declare positions in the Civil Service as
primarily confidential.
The court pointed out that the three-tiered process within the CSC, involving the field office, regional
office, and the CSC itself, ensured a thorough consideration of the petitioners' case. The court found
that the petitioners failed to show that the CSC acted arbitrarily or whimsically, and it concluded that
the circular was a valid exercise of the authority granted to the CSC by law.
As a result, the court dismissed the petition for lack of merit, affirming the validity of Memorandum
Circular No. 22, Series of 1991, and Resolution No. 972512.
G.R. No. 141141 June 25, 2001
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), petitioner,
vs.
CARLOS P. RILLORAZA, respondent.

FACTS:
In 1997, Carlos P. Rilloraza, a PAGCOR casino manager, faced allegations of irregularities during his
shift, leading to his initial dismissal. The Civil Service Commission later reduced his penalty to a one-
month suspension, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals. The court underscored the
importance of considering the nature of Rilloraza's position in determining confidentiality. PAGCOR
argued for dismissal citing loss of confidence under Section 16 of Presidential Decree No. 1869.
However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that executive pronouncements are not
conclusive, and the position's inherent nature prevails. Ultimately, the court affirmed the suspension
rather than dismissal.

ISSUE:
whether the removal of the phrase "in nature" from later enactments defining policy-determining,
primarily confidential, or highly technical positions affects the control and influence of the Piñero
doctrine in matters concerning the CSC.
RULING:
The court upholds the Piñero doctrine, emphasizing that the nature of a position, not its official
classification, determines if it's primarily confidential, policy-determining, or highly technical.
Declarations by law are subject to judicial review.
The ruling rejects a blanket declaration that all positions in the Philippine Amusement and Gaming
Corporation (PAGCOR) are primarily confidential, stating such classifications are not absolute.
It highlights the casino operations manager's duties, emphasizing the need for trust and proximity to
the appointing power for a position to be primarily confidential.
Regarding the respondent's case, the court finds no dishonesty, categorizing the actions as simple
neglect of duty, supporting the imposed penalty of suspension.
G.R. No. 112513 August 21, 1997

EDGAR R. DEL CASTILLO, petitioner,

vs.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION and/or ASSOCIATE
COMMISSIONER MARIANO A. MENDIETA of the Professional Regulation Commission, respondent.

FACTS:

Edgar R. Del Castillo, an employee at the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), faced
suspension on August 1, 1990, due to alleged misconduct. After being dismissed by the PRC, Del
Castillo appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which vindicated him. However,
the Civil Service Commission (CSC) upheld his dismissal on PRC's appeal. Del Castillo, disputing CSC's
decision and claiming abuse of discretion, sought relief from the Supreme Court. In 1995, the
Supreme Court overturned the CSC's ruling, reinstating Del Castillo without specifying the provision
of back salary payment.

Despite the absence of a clear mandate on back wages, Del Castillo requested both reinstatement
and retroactive pay from PRC Chairman Hermogenes Pobre. Upon his reinstatement in July 1995,
Pobre denied Del Castillo's backwages claim, citing a letter from the Department of Bureau and
Management that argued a lack of legal basis.

In response, Del Castillo sought clarification by filing a "Motion for Clarificatory Relief" with the
Supreme Court. Support for his plea for backwages came from both the Civil Service Commission and
the Solicitor General.

ISSUE:

RULING: The Supreme Court granted Del Castillo's "Motion for Clarificatory Relief." The Court
ordered that Del Castillo be paid back salaries and other benefits at the rate prescribed for the
position he held as a civil servant. This payment was directed to cover the period from the time of
his preventive suspension on August 1, 1990, until his actual reinstatement on July 17, 1995, without
any deduction.

The Court's decision was based on the understanding that, having been exonerated of the charges
against him, Del Castillo should be awarded back salaries. The Court emphasized that the silence in
the MSPB's decision regarding back salaries did not preclude such an award. The ruling affirmed Del
Castillo's entitlement to the rights and privileges that accrue to him by virtue of the office he held,
including back salaries, as clarified by various legal precedents cited in the decision.
G.R. No. L-46585 February 8, 1988

DR. ANGELA V. GINSON, petitioner,

vs.
MUNICIPALITY OF MURCIA AND MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF MURCIA AND HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS:

In this case, the Municipal Dentist of Murcia, Negros Occidental, was dismissed by Mayor Baldomero
de la Rama, who cited "lack of funds" as the reason. The petitioner, who had served diligently since
August 1, 1964, immediately appealed for reinstatement, but the mayor refused, suggesting legal
action. The municipality claimed financial difficulties due to an alleged overdraft, justifying the
dismissal. However, evidence presented during the trial suggested existing funds in the municipality,
an increased budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and contradictory actions such as salary increases
and new appointments.

ISSUE:

whether the financial difficulties claimed by the municipality genuinely warrant the dismissal of the
Municipal Dentist or if there are inconsistencies and lack of justification in the given reasons for
termination.

RULING:

The Supreme Court declared the dismissal of the petitioner (Municipal Dentist) null and void. The
Court rejected the municipality's claim of financial difficulties, citing contradictions in the lower
courts' findings and evidence suggesting the municipality had sufficient funds. The Court also
dismissed the municipality's contention that the termination resulted from the abolition of the
petitioner's position, noting the absence of good faith in the abolition.

The Court ordered the reinstatement of the petitioner as the municipal dentist of the Municipality of
Murcia, Negros Occidental, or to any position for which she is qualified under the Civil Service Law
and other rules. Additionally, the private respondents (Municipality of Murcia, Negros Occidental,
and the Municipal Mayor) were directed to pay back salaries to the petitioner equivalent to five
years based on her latest salary scale.

The decision is deemed immediately executory, and costs were imposed against the private
respondents. The liability of the private respondents is declared to be joint and solidary.