Case Title Facts Issues/ Held

Juco vs. NLRC

- 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 !L"
but labor arbiter dismissed
complaint on ground that NLRC
had no jurisdiction
- Case was elevated to NLRC which
reversed labor arbiter#s decision
- Juco then filed with the C$C a
complaint for illegal dismissal but
was dismissed bec. NHC argued
C$C had no jurisdiction
Whether NLRC or CSC has jurisdiction
over Jucos case
- NHC is a government owned and
controlled corporation organi%ed in
accordance with the &niform
Charter of 'ovt. Corp
- Considering that NH( had been
incorporated under (ct )*+,- the
former corporation law- it#s a
'!CC whose emplo.ees are
subject to the provisions of the
Labor Code
- Having been incorporated under
the Corporation Law- and governed
b. the Labor Code- it comes under
the jurisdiction of the NLRC
/aturan vs. /aglana
- /aturan was appointed as
patrolman of $an 0rancisco $.
Le.te- then promoted as police
sergeant- all appointment
provisional which was renewed.
- Respondent /a.or /aglana then
suspended petitioner because of
two pending criminal cases against
him- and instructed the latter to
tender his resignation pursuant to a
L!1 2Letter of 1ns.3 No. )* from
the 4resident- 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
dut. but Chief of 4olice Refused to
accept petitioner
- 4etitioner filed a claim for bac5
salaries- but court said petitioner#s
appointment was provisional and
he can be removed at an. time b.
the appointing power
Whether or not petitioner shall be
reinstated to his position as police sergeant
- /aturan cannot be resinstated to
his former post
- He was not 6ualified for the
position nor was he possessed with
an. civil service eligibilit. for an.
position in the government.
- Lac5 of civil service eligibilit.
ma5es his appointment temporar.
and is dependent entirel. upon the
pleasure of the appointing power.
- 7hen petitioner received his
appointment he had no eligibilit.
and what is re6uired is a new
appointment- not merel. a
reinstatement
- /a.or cannot be compelled to
appoint him because such power of
the /a.or is discretionar.
Corpus vs. Cuaderno
- /arino Corpus- holding position as
$pecial (ssistant to the 'overnor-
declared b. the 4resident as highl.
technical- was administrativel.
charged with dishonest.-
incompetence- neglect of dut.- etc.
- Corpus was then suspended b. the
/onetar. 8oard 2investigation
proved him innocent3- and upon a
formal statement of 'overnor
Cuaderno that he has lost his
confidence in the respondent- such
position being primaril.
confidential and highl. technical in
nature- the /8 then considered
Corpus as resigned
Whether or not the petitioner was justly
removed from office
- No. 9he loss of confidence ground
was a clear afterthought resorted to
when the charges of he
investigation were not proved.
- 9enure of officials with primaril.
confidential positions ends upon
loss of confidence : but this is not
so with those highl. technical
positions which re6uire special
s5ills and 6ualifications
- Constitution clearl. distinguished
highl. technical from primaril.
confidential posts- and to appl. the
loss of confidence rule to the
)
- (ccording to Central 8an5 and
/8- officers of highl. technical
positions ma. be removed an.
time for lac5 of confidence b. the
appointing power
highl. technical post is to ignore
and erase the differentiation
e;pressl. made b. the Consti.
- ( position ma. be declared both
highl. technical and confidential-
but such is not the categor. of the
petitioner#s position
N($"C! vs. NLRC
- - '!CCs included in the civil
service under the ),<= Consti are
onl. those created b. special law-
or given legislative charters- and
not those established under the
Corporation Code
- Civil service does not include
'!CCs organi%ed as subsidiaries
of '!CCs under the general
corporation law.
Chua vs. C$C
- R( >><?- which provides benefits
for earl. retirement and voluntar.
separation from the govt. service as
well as for involuntar. separation
due to reorgani%ations was enacted
- 4etitioner Chua believing she is
6ualified to avail of said benefits
filed an application in the Natl.
1rrig. (dmin. 7hich denied the
claim
- 4etitioner recoursed to the C$C but
was denied bec. 4etitioenr#s
emplo.ment is co-terminous with
the project per appointment papers
and is not a regular emplo.ee of
the N1( for she belongs to the non-
career service which is inherentl.
temporar.
- 4etitioner filed suit before the $C
alleging that she met the
re6uirement that an applicant must
be on a casual- emergenc.-
temporar. or regular emplo.ment
status
Whether or not petitioner a co!terminous
employee shall be entitled to the benefits of
R" ##$%
- ( co-terminous emplo.ee is a non-
career civil servant- li5e casual and
emergenc. emplo.ees- and there is
no reason wh. the latter are
e;tended such benefits but the
former are not
- R( >><? e;pressl. e;tends its
benefits for earl. retirement to
regular- temporar.- casual and
emergenc. emplo.ees
- enial b. respondent is
unreasonable as petitioner had filed
an application for voluntar.
retirement within a reasonable
period and is therefore entitled to
the benefits of said law.
4ineda vs. Claudio
- &pon death of Col. 9unaliuan- the
position of Chief of 4olic of 4asa.
becamse vacant
- 4asa. /a.or Claudio appointed
@illa- a state prosecutor- but
respondent Commissioner of C$C
held the appointment in abe.ance
until other person who have
preferential right to appointment
have been considered
- !ne of them is 4ineda- deput.
chief of police- a person ne;t-in-
Whether or not Claudio is mandated to
promote &ineda to the vacant position of
Chief of &olice
- 1t is neither mandator. nor
ministerial for Claudio to promote
4ineda to the vacant position
- $ec. A? does not re6uire that
vacancies must be filled b.
promotion- transfer- reinstatement-
reemplo.ment or certification- in
that order
- 1t onl. purports that as far as
A
ran5 entitled to promotional
preference for the position of chief
of police before others ma. be
considered for transfer-
reinstatement- reemplo.ment or
certification.
- 4ineda filed action contending that
under $ec. A? of the Civil $ervice
(ct- he should be promoted as the
emplo.ee ne;t in ran5
- Claudio contended that $ec. < of
the 4olice (ct states that chief of
police ma. be appointed from list
of eligibles certified b. the C$C
practicable the person ne;t in line
should be promoted- otherwise the
vacanc. ma. be filled b. 9RRC- as
the appointing power sees fit
- 4rinciple of seniorit. and ne;t in
ran5 applies onl. to cases of
promotion
- 7here appointing power chooses
to fill the vacanc. not b.
promotion but b. 9RRC- he is
under no dut. whatsoever to
e;plain his action- for the law does
not re6uire him.
/onsanto vs. 0actoran - $andiganba.an convicted
petitioner /onsanto 2then assistant
treasurer of Calba.og Cit.3 of the
crime of estafa thru falsification of
public documents
- $C affirmed her conviction but
4res. /arcos e;tended her absolute
pardon
- $he then re6uested to Calba.og
Cit. treasurer that she be restored
to her former post
- /atter was brought to eput.
e;ec. $ec. 0actoran and held that
ac6uittal not absolute pardon is the
onl. ground for reinstatement and
entitlement to pa.ment of his
salaries
- 4etitioner is also liable for civil
indemnit.
Whether or not petitioner who has been
granted absolute pardon entitled to
reinstatement to her former position without
need of new appointment
- $C 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
- 4ardon does not restore convicted
felon to public office although it
restores eligibilit. for appointment
to that office
- 9o regain former post- petitioner
must re appl. and undergo usual
procedure for new appointment
- 4etitioner still liable civill.
'arcia vs. Commision on (udit
- 4etitioner was a $upervising
lineman in the 8ureau of
9elecomms and was dismissed
from service based on (dmin.
Case for the loss of several
telegraph poles
- 8ased on same facts a criminal
case for 6ualified theft was filed
against petitioner but he was
ac6uitted of the offense charged
- He sought reinstatement and
pleaded to the 4resident for
e;ecutive clemenc. which was
granted
- 4etitioner then claimed with C!(
his bac5 salaries from date of
dismissal but C!( denied stating
clemenc. did not provide pa.ment
of bac5 salaries and that there is no
reinstatement in service
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to
reinstament and payment of bac'wages
pursuant to the grant of e(ecutive clemency
- 7hen a person is pardoned
because he did not trul. commit
the offense- he is relieved from all
punitive conse6uences of his
criminal act- restoring him to clean
character prior to find of guilt
- (c6uittal of petitioner was founded
not on lac5 of proof be.ond
reasonable doubt but on the fact
that petitioner did not commit the
offense
- ";ecutive clemenc. obliterated
adverse effects of admin decision
and directs reinstatement of
petitioner- rendered automatic b.
grant of pardon
- 4etitioner is restored to his office
ipso facto and entitles him to bac5
wages
- 4etitioner awarded full bac5 wages
from date illegall. dismissed to
reinstatement
?
$$$ "mplo.ees (ssoc. vs. C(
- $$$"( went on stri5e after $$$
failed to act on the &nion#s
demands
- $$$ filed with R9C of Bue%on
Cit. a complaint for damages with
injunction against petitioner
alleging that $$$"( staged an
illegal stri5e and barricaded the
entrance preventing non-stri5ing
emplo.ees from reporting for wor5
and transacting business
- Complaint pra.ed to enjoin stri5e-
stri5ers ordered to return to wor5-
and to pa. damages- and stri5e to
be declared illegal
- 4etitioners filed a motion to
dismiss alleging trial court lac5ed
jurisdiction since it laid with the
!L" or NLRC since it involves a
labor dispute
Whether or not employees of SSS have right
to Stri'e
Whether or not R)C has jurisdiction
- "mplo.ees of $$$ are covered b.
the prohibition against stri5es
pursuant to /emo Circular No. >
issued b. C$C which enjoin all
govt officers and emplo.ees from
staging stri5es- demonstrations and
other forms of mass action which
result in temporar. stoppage of
public service
- ),<=) consti provides that civil
service embraces '!CCs with
original charters
- $$$ is a '!CC with an original
charter created b. R( ))>)- and
therefore its emplo.ees are part of
civil service- covered b. the C$C
memo prohibiting stri5es
- Labor Code provides that terms
and conditions of emplo.ment of
govt. emplo.ees shall be governed
b. the civil service law- and
clearl.- NLRC has no jurisdiction
9rade &nions of the 4hils and
(llied $ervices vs. Natl.
Housing Corp.
- 9&4($ filed petition for conduct
of certification election with the
Reg. !ffice of !L" to determine
e;clusive bargaining representative
of wor5ers in NHC
- 4etition was dismissed b. arbiter
holding that NHC being a
government-owned and / or
controlled corporation its
emplo.ees are prohibited to form-
enjoin or assist an. labor
organi%ation for purposes of
collective bargaining pursuant to
the labor code
Whether or not N*C employees are
prohibited to form join or assist any labor
organi+ation for purposes of collective
bargaining
- 9he wor5ers of NHC undoubtedl.
have the right to from unions or
emplo.ees organi%ations :
e;plicitl. recogni%ed and granted
to emplo.ees in both the
governmental and private sectors
- 9his guarantee is reiterated in the
A
nd
paragraph of section ?- article
C111 on $ocial Justice and Human
Rights which mandates that the
$tate shall guarantee the rights of
all wor5ers to self-organi%ation-
collective bargaining and
negotiationsD
- 9here is no impediment to the
holding of a certification election
among the wor5ers of NHC for it is
clear that the. are covered b. the
Labor Code- being a '!CC
without an original charter
0estejo vs. 0ernando
- Carmen 0estejo was the owner of ,
hectares of land and the irector of
8ureau of 4ublic 7or5s- without
consent and 5nowledge of plaintiff
0estejo- and against her e;press
objection- unlawfull. too5
possession of portions of the land
and caused an irrigation canal to be
Whether or not respondent can be sued
- Ees. 0or the trespass on plaintiff#s
land- defendant committed acts
outside the scope of his authorit.
- !rdinaril.- the officer/emplo.ee
committing the tort is personall.
liable and ma.be sued as an. other
citi%en and held answerable for
*
constructed to the damage and
prejudice of plaintiff
- Respondent filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground of $tate
1mmunit.
whatever injur./damage results
from his tortuous act
- 1f an officer- even while acting
under color of his office e;ceeds
the power conferred on him b. law-
he cannot shelter himself under the
plea that he is a public agent
(merican 9obacco Co. vs.
irector of Lands
- 4etitioner (9C challenged the
validit. of Rule )>< of the Revised
Rules of 4ractice- authori%ing the
irector of patents to designate
an. ran5ing official of said office
to hear Finter partesG proceedings
- 9hese proceedings refer to the
hearing of opposition to the
registration of mar5 or trade names
interference proceedings
- 7hen the Rules of 9rade mar5
4ractices were amended- the
irector of 4atents delegated the
hearing of petitioners to hearing
officers.
- 4etitioners filed objections alleging
that amended rules is illegal and
void because the irector of
4atents must personall. hear and
decide cases
Whether or not ,irector of &atents has
authority to designate any official to hear
inter partes proceedings
- Ees. &nder $ec. ?- R( )>+- the
irector of 4atents is empowered
to obtain the assistance of
technical- scientific or other
6ualified officers or emplo.ees of
other departments- bureaus- offices-
agencies and instrumentalities of
the govt. when deemed necessar.
- 9here is no provision negativiting
the e;istence of such authorit.
- 9he rule that re6uires
administrative officers to e;ercise
his own judgment and discretion
does not preclude him from
utili%ing as a matter of practical
administrative procedure the aid of
subordinates to investigate and
report to him facts to ma5e his
decisions.
HN$E
+