Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Asian Transmission Corporation Vs
Asian Transmission Corporation Vs
Asian Transmission Corporation Vs
CA
FACTS:
The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) issued an Explanatory
Bulletin wherein it clarified that employees are entitled to 200% of their
basic wage on April 9, 1993, whether unworked, which, apart from being
Maundy Thursday, is also Araw ng Kagitingan. Despite the explanatory
bulletin, petitioner Asian Transmission Corporation opted to pay its daily paid
employees only 100% of their basic pay on April 9, 1998. Respondent Bisig
ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATLU) protested. The controversy was
submitted for voluntary arbitration. The Voluntary Arbitrator decided in favor
of BATLU. In the assailed decision, the CA upheld the findings of the
Voluntary Arbitrator. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65.
ISSUE:
W/N the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed by Asian Transmission
Corporation will prosper?
HELD:
No. The appeal from a final disposition of the CA is a petition for review
under Rule 45 and not a special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court which was filed by the petitioner.
Rule 45 is clear that the decisions, final orders or resolutions of the CA in any
case, i.e., regardless of the nature of the action or proceeding involved, may
be appealed to this Court by filing a petition for review, which would be but a
continuation of the appellate process over the original case. Under Rule 45
the reglementary period to appeal is fifteen (15) days from notice of
judgment or denial of motion for reconsideration.
For the writ of certiorari under Rule 65 to issue, a petitioner must show that
he has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law
against its perceived grievance. A remedy is considered "plain, speedy and
adequate" if it will promptly relieve the petitioner from the injurious effects
of the judgment and the acts of the lower court or agency. In this case,
appeal was not only available but also a speedy and adequate remedy.
The petition is DISMISSED.
therein that all decisions and final orders in cases falling under the Interim
Rules of Corporate Rehabilitation and the Interim Rules of Procedure
Governing Intra-Corporate Controversies under Republic Act No. 8799 shall
be appealed to the CA through a petition for review under Rule 43 of the
Rules of Court to be filed within fifteen (15) days from notice of the decision
or final order of the RTC.
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
CENTRO ESCOLAR UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND ALLIED WORKERS
UNION INDEPENDENT vs. CA
FACTS:
Petitioner union has existing CBAs with the university that granted both the
teaching and the non-teaching staff increases in their compensation.
Petitioner asserts that the integrated Incremental Proceeds granted in the
CBAs should not be deducted from the personnels 70% share in the IP.
Petitioner contended that the deduction of the IP integration from the 70%
share of tuition fee increase is illegal and contrary to the CBA, as the IP
integration in the salary is considered a CBA-won increase, hence, may not
be deducted from the 70%.
Respondent university averred that there are two kinds of salary increases in
the CBAthe CBA-negotiated increase taken from the university fund, and
the increase as a result of IP integration which, by its nature, is taken from
the 70% share of the school personnel in the IP. It further argued that it
would not be feasible to grant additional IP to teachers with overload or
permanent substitution assignments, as the IP is distributed among all
employees of the school, whether teaching or non-teaching.
The Voluntary Arbitrator upheld the position of respondent university and
dismissed the case. Petitioner elevated the case to the CA via petition for
certiorari under Rule 65. The appellate court dismissed the petition on the
ground that petitioner used a wrong mode of appeal. It held that petitioner
should have filed an appeal under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. The CA also denied the motion for reconsideration filed by
petitioner. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
W/N the CA erred in holding that petitioner used a wrong remedy when it
filed a special civil action on certiorari under Rule 65?
HELD:
NO. The CA did not err in holding that petitioner used a wrong remedy when
it filed a special civil action on certiorari under Rule 65 instead of an appeal
under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
ISSUE:
W/N the filing of the petition for certiorari is the proper remedy?
The release of the Swiss funds held in escrow in the PNB is dependent solely
on the decision of this jurisdiction that said funds belong to the petitioner
Republic. What is important is our own assessment of the sufficiency of the
evidence to rule in favor of either petitioner Republic or respondent
Marcoses. In this instance, despite the absence of the authenticated
translations of the Swiss decisions, the evidence on hand tilts convincingly in
favor of petitioner Republic.
HELD:
No. The special civil action for certiorari is a remedy designed for the
correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment. The raison
detre for the rule is when a court exercises its jurisdiction, an error
committed while so engaged does not deprive it of the jurisdiction being
exercised when the error is committed. If it did, every error committed by a
court would deprive it of its jurisdiction and every erroneous judgment would
be a void judgment. In such a scenario, the administration of justice would
not survive. Hence, where the issue or question involved affects the wisdom
or legal soundness of the decision --- not the jurisdiction of the court to
render said decision --- the same is beyond the province of a special civil
action for certiorari.
In the case at hand, the issues alleged are only possible errors of judgment,
questioning the correctness of the CAs rulings. Hence, since the issues
involved do not affect the jurisdiction of the CA, the writ of certiorari cannot
be availed of by petitioner. Moreover, the CA acted properly in dismissing
Estreras petition for failure to comply with the requirements provided by the
Rules of Court.
INDIANA AEROSPACE UNIVERSITY vs. CHED
FACTS:
CHED received a letter from the Chairman of Professional Regulatory
Commission inquiring whether Indiana Aerospace already acquired university
status in view of its advertisement as such in Manila Bulletin. Upon
investigation, it was verified from SEC that Indiana School of Aeronautics
failed to amend its Articles of Incorporation to change its name to Indiana
Aerospace University. Thus, CHED ordered it to desist from using the term
University.
Prior thereto, Indiana Aerospace filed a complaint for damages with a prayer
for Writ of Preliminary Injunction. CHED, on the other hand filed a motion to
Dismiss. The lower court dismissed the Motion to Dismiss and Granted
Indianas prayer for Preliminary Injunction. CHED filed with CA a petitioner
for certiorari arguing that RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying its Motion to Dismiss and in declaring it in default despite its filing
an Answer. Indiana claims that the Petition for Certiorari of CHED should
have been dismissed by CA because it was filed out of time and was not
preceded by a motion for reconsideration in the RTC.
ISSUE:
Was the certiorari petition properly and timely filed?
HELD:
Yes. CHEDs Petition for Certiorari was seasonable filed.
timeliness, what should have been considered is the
respondent received the Order declaring it in default. In
CHED was able to comply with the 60-day reglamentary
Petition for Certiorari.
In computing its
date when the
the case at bar,
period to file its
Bacal filed a petition for quo warranto questioning her replacement as Chief
Public Attorney but it was dismissed. Respondent brought her case in the CA
which ruled in her favor. Petitioners moved for a reconsideration, but their
motion was denied. Hence this petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE:
W/N the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for quo warranto?
HELD:
Yes.
Respondent Bacal is a CESO III and that the position of Regional Director of
the PAO, to which she was transferred, corresponds to her CES Rank Level III
and Salary Grade 28. This was her position before her appointment to the
position of Chief Public Attorney of the PAO, which requires a CES Rank Level
I for appointment thereto.
As respondent does not have the rank
appropriate for the position of Chief Public Attorney, her appointment to that
position cannot be considered permanent, and she can claim no security of
tenure in respect of that position.
On the other hand, Justice Puno makes much of the fact that petitioner
Carina Demaisip is not a CES eligible. Suffice it to say the law allows in
exceptional cases the appointment of non-CES eligibles provided that the
appointees subsequently pass the CES Examinations.
On the other hand, as respondent herself does not have the requisite
qualification for the position of Chief Public Attorney, she cannot raise the
lack of qualification of petitioner. As held in Carillo v. CA, in a quo warranto
proceeding the person suing must show that he has a clear right to the office
allegedly held unlawfully by another.
Absent that right, the lack of
qualification or eligibility of the supposed usurper is immaterial. Indeed, this
has been the exacting rule since it was first announced, 95 years ago, in
Acosta v. Flor. As at present embodied in Rule 66, 5 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure, the rule is that a person claiming to be entitled to a public office
or position usurped or unlawfully held or exercised by another may bring an
action therefor in his own name.
The decision of the CA is REVERSED and the petition for quo warranto filed
by respondent is DISMISSED.