Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 91 views

    581 Sison vs. Pangrayumen

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    Petitioner Abraham Sison filed a petition for certiorari and quo warranto to annul the appointment of Eureka Maliwanag as Assistant City Assessor by the Mayor of Olongapo City. Sison alleged he was the rightful candidate for the position as Chief Deputy Assessor and Maliwanag's appointment violated the rule of next-in-rank. The Supreme Court ruled that Sison's ultimate remedy was through quo warranto to nullify Maliwanag's appointment, making the one-year period prescribed by the rules of quo warranto applicable. Even though Sison also sought administrative relief, this did not stop the one-year period for filing a judicial action. Therefore

    Copyright:

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

    581 Sison vs. Pangrayumen

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    91 views1 page
    Petitioner Abraham Sison filed a petition for certiorari and quo warranto to annul the appointment of Eureka Maliwanag as Assistant City Assessor by the Mayor of Olongapo City. Sison alleged he was the rightful candidate for the position as Chief Deputy Assessor and Maliwanag's appointment violated the rule of next-in-rank. The Supreme Court ruled that Sison's ultimate remedy was through quo warranto to nullify Maliwanag's appointment, making the one-year period prescribed by the rules of quo warranto applicable. Even though Sison also sought administrative relief, this did not stop the one-year period for filing a judicial action. Therefore

    Original Title

    581 SISON VS. PANGRAYUMEN.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Petitioner Abraham Sison filed a petition for certiorari and quo warranto to annul the appointment of Eureka Maliwanag as Assistant City Assessor by the Mayor of Olongapo City. Sison alleged he was the rightful candidate for the position as Chief Deputy Assessor and Maliwanag's appointment violated the rule of next-in-rank. The Supreme Court ruled that Sison's ultimate remedy was through quo warranto to nullify Maliwanag's appointment, making the one-year period prescribed by the rules of quo warranto applicable. Even though Sison also sought administrative relief, this did not stop the one-year period for filing a judicial action. Therefore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    91 views1 page

    581 Sison vs. Pangrayumen

    Uploaded by

    Abegail Galedo
    Petitioner Abraham Sison filed a petition for certiorari and quo warranto to annul the appointment of Eureka Maliwanag as Assistant City Assessor by the Mayor of Olongapo City. Sison alleged he was the rightful candidate for the position as Chief Deputy Assessor and Maliwanag's appointment violated the rule of next-in-rank. The Supreme Court ruled that Sison's ultimate remedy was through quo warranto to nullify Maliwanag's appointment, making the one-year period prescribed by the rules of quo warranto applicable. Even though Sison also sought administrative relief, this did not stop the one-year period for filing a judicial action. Therefore

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Galedo, Abegail P.

    581. SISON VS. PANGRAYUMEN

    PETITIONER : ABRAHAM C. SISON


    RESPONDENT: HON. EPI REY PANGRAMUYEN, Commissioner of Civil Service;
    GERONIMO LIPUMANO, Mayor, Olongapo City; ALFREDO D. OCAMPO,
    Officer-in-Charge, Civil Service, Regional Office No. 3, San Fernando,
    Pampanga; and EUREKA F. MALIWANAG, Assistant City Assesor,
    Olongapo City, respondent
    DATE : July 31, 1978
    PONENTE : BARREDO, J
    TOPIC : Quo Warranto

    FACTS:

     Petitioner instituted an action for certiorari and quo warranto to annul the actions of respondents
    Regional Director and commissioner of Civil Service. He alleged that he was the Chief Deputy
    Assessor at the time exercising supervision over respondent Maliwanag.
     That the appointment extended by respondent City Mayor is illegal being violative of the rule of
    next-in-rank. Petitioner maintains that he should be appointed instead of respondent Maliwanag.
     Petitioner contends in regard to this point that Section 16 of Rule 66 invoked by private
    respondent refers to actions of quo warranto and since his petition is also for certiorari and
    mandamus, said rule is inapplicable.

    ISSUE:

    WON the rules of Quo warranto is applicable in this case.

    HELD:

     Petitioner’s allegation boils down to the removal of respondent Maliwanag to be replaced by him.
    the ouster of Maliwanag by quo warranto has to be based on a nullification o her appointment,
    which petitioner seeks, albeit unnecessarily, by certiorari. His ultimate remedy, therefore, is quo
    warranto. Besides, even if it could be also viewed as mandamus, it is already settled that his latter
    remedy prescribes also after one year.
     And it is of no avail to petitioner that during the intervening period of more than one year, he was
    seeking relief from the corresponding administrative outhorities. The resort to such administrative
    remedy does not abate the period for the judicial action.
     Petition is dismissed.

    You might also like