Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 952 views

    07) Career Executive V CSC

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Miguel Lopez
    The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to challenge the CSC's ruling in favor of Blesilda Lodevico. While certiorari and prohibition are usually not allowed when there is an available remedy like appeal, the Supreme Court allowed liberal application of procedural rules in this case for broader interests of justice. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the CESB, finding that Lodevico's appointment as Director was temporary and her Career Executive Service eligibility did not make her appointment permanent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    07) Career Executive V CSC

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Miguel Lopez
    952 views2 pages
    The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to challenge the CSC's ruling in favor of Blesilda Lodevico. While certiorari and prohibition are usually not allowed when there is an available remedy like appeal, the Supreme Court allowed liberal application of procedural rules in this case for broader interests of justice. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the CESB, finding that Lodevico's appointment as Director was temporary and her Career Executive Service eligibility did not make her appointment permanent.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    07) Career Executive v CSC

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to challenge the CSC's ruling in favor of Blesilda Lodevico. While certiorari and prohibition are usually not allowed when there is an available remedy like appeal, the Supreme Court allowed liberal application of procedural rules in this case for broader interests of justice. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the CESB, finding that Lodevico's appointment as Director was temporary and her Career Executive Service eligibility did not make her appointment permanent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    952 views2 pages

    07) Career Executive V CSC

    Uploaded by

    Alfonso Miguel Lopez
    The Career Executive Service Board (CESB) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to challenge the CSC's ruling in favor of Blesilda Lodevico. While certiorari and prohibition are usually not allowed when there is an available remedy like appeal, the Supreme Court allowed liberal application of procedural rules in this case for broader interests of justice. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the CESB, finding that Lodevico's appointment as Director was temporary and her Career Executive Service eligibility did not make her appointment permanent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD vs CIVIL SERVICE ● Pursuant to MC 1, Abesamis of CESB issued a memorandum

    COMMISSION informing Lodevico that she shall only remain in office until July 31,
    G.R. No. 196890 | Date January 11, 2018 2010.
    Ponente: Justice Tjam ● Lodevico filed her appeal on the memorandum issued by Abesamis
    (Digested by: GARY RAFAEL S. VALERA// Edited by: Lopez) before the CSC. CSC ruled in favor of Leodevico and declared the
    memorandum null and void.
    Petitioner: CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD, (CESB) represented ● Career Executive Service board filed an MR but it was denied.
    by CHAIRPERSON BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 62.
    ● Respondents aver that the petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of
    MA. ANTHONETTE VELASCO-ALLONES, and DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
    appeal as Rule 43 is the proper remedy.
    DIRECTOR ARTURO M. LACHICA
    Respondent: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, represented by CHAIRMAN
    ISSUE: WON Certiorari and Prohibition under rule 65 is proper? No
    FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III and BLESILDA V. LODEVICO

    HELD:
    DOCTRINE: It is well-settled that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and
    ● It is well-settled that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and
    prohibition are resorted to only where 1. a tribunal, a board or an officer
    prohibition are resorted to only where (a) a tribunal, a board or an
    exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of
    officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without
    jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
    or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
    jurisdiction; and 2. there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate
    amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (b) there is no appeal
    remedy in the ordinary course of law except in cases (a) when public welfare
    or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
    and the advancement of public policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests
    law.
    of justice so require; (c) when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the
    ● In the case at bar, it is clear that the second requirement is absent as
    questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority
    petition for review under Section 118 of Rule 43 ·is available to
    petitioners. However, there are exceptions to the aforementioned
    FACTS:
    rule, namely: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public
    ● Blesilda Lodevico (Lodevico) was appointed by then President Gloria
    policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests of justice so require; (c)
    Macapagal-Arroyo on May 14, 2008 as Director III, Recruitment and
    when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the questioned order
    Career Development Service, CESB.
    amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
    ● Lodevico possesses a Career Service Executive Eligibility since
    ● In the case of Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Leyeco IV
    November 29, 2001, as evidenced by the Certificate of Eligibility
    Employees Union-ALU, We relaxed the application of the rules of
    issued by the CSC.
    procedure to meet the ends of justice. In Leyte IV, the petitioners
    ● June 30, 2010: Office of the President (OP) issued Memorandum
    filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of filing a petition
    Circular 1 (MC1) which declared all non-career executive service
    for review under Rule 43, but We gave due course to the petition to
    positions vacant.
    ● July 16, 2010: OP promulgated the Implementing Guidelines of MC accommodate the broader interest of justice.
    ● In allowing the liberal application of procedural rules, We
    1, which states that all non-Career Executive Service Officers (non-
    emphasized in the case of Obut v. Court of Appeals, et al. that
    CESO) in all agencies of the Executive Branch shall remain in office
    placing the administration of justice in a straightjacket, i.e., following
    and continue to perform their duties until July 31, 2010 or until their
    technical rules on procedure would result into a poor kind of justice.
    resignations have been accepted and/or their replacements have
    Thus, a rigid application of the rules of procedure will not be
    been appointed or designated, whichever comes first.
    entertained if it will obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of
    justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances of the case under
    consideration.
    ● Considering the foregoing and the circumstances obtaining in this
    case, We allow the application of liberality of the rules of procedure
    to give due course to the petition filed by petitioners as the broader
    interest of justice so requires.
    ● Main Ruling of the Case: Lodevico’s appointment is merely
    temporary so her services may b e terminated with or wihtout cause.
    Hence, her discharge was proper. CES Eligibility and her
    appointment as Director do not automatically mean that her
    appointment is permanent.

    You might also like