Case Digest for Constitution

19. Santos vs Yatco

Facts: Petitioner files for certiorari to revoke the order of respondent Judge
Yatco for cancelling his previous order for execution on the parcel of land owned
by the petitioner. The said parcel of land is being occupied by Fernando
Mendoñ ez with an agreement to pay in installment the said land to the
petitioners and that he shall voluntarily vacate the land and the payments he
previously made shall be forfeited in favor of the plaintiff. A civil case was filed
by the petitioner against Mendoñ ez for failure to pay as per agreement of both
parties. Petitioner later filed a motion for execution to take the land back.
Defendant Mendoñ ez moved for postponement to give both parties sufficient
time to come to an agreement which was allowed by the respondent judge. It was
settled by both parties that Mendoñ ez will secure a GSIS loan however when he
was ready to make the payment the petitioner refused to abide with their
agreement and now asking for a higher amount of money for payment. Finding
no justification on the issuance of the writ of execution, Judge Yatco quashed said
order hence this petition for certiorari based on lack of jurisdiction or abuse of
discretion.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent judge acted in lack of jurisdiction or abuse
of discretion

Ruling: The court held that any judge has the jurisdiction to quash any writ of
execution issued by him especially when it was improvidently issued. There is no
abuse of discretion by the judge since the defendant made an opposition and
proved that there is subsequent verbal agreement that amended the compromise
hence the execution cannot be validly decreed without a hearing. The
consequent ability of the defendant to meet his obligations by securing a GSIS
loan also justifies the court’s refusal to eject him from the premises by an
execution.
20. Anicia de Lima vs Larry M. Alfonso

Facts: Respondent Larry Alfonso was charged with Grave Misconduct and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and preventively
suspending him from his position as Director of the Human Resources
Management Department of the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP).
Respondent argued that the CSC had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the
administrative case filed against him. According to him, it is the PUP Board of
Regents that has the exclusive authority to appoint and remove PUP employees
pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 8292 in relation to R.A. No. 4670 Without
ruling on the motion, Assistant Commissioner Atty. Anicia Marasigan-de Lima,
head of CSC-NCR, issued an Order dated December 11, 2006 directing the
Office of the President of PUP to implement the preventive suspension
order against respondent.Dissatisfied, respondent sought relief before the CA
via a petition for certiorari and prohibition.On May 21, 2007, the CA rendered a
decision in favor of Alfonso

Issue: Whether or not the CSC has jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint
filed against Alfonso.

Ruling: As the central personnel agency of the government, the CSC has
jurisdiction to supervise the performance of and discipline, if need be, all
government employees, including those employed in government-owned or
controlled corporations with original charters such as PUP. Accordingly, all PUP
officers and employees, whether they be classified as teachers or professors
pursuant to certain provisions of law, are deemed, first and foremost, civil
servants accountable to the people and answerable to the CSC in cases of
complaints lodged by a citizen against them as public servants. Admittedly, the
CSC has appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary cases decided by government
departments, agencies and instrumentalities. However, a complaint may be filed
directly with the CSC, and the Commission has the authority to hear and decide
the case, although it may opt to deputize a department or an agency to conduct
the investigation.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the May 21, 2007 Decision and August 23,
2007Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 97284 are hereby
REVERSED and SETASIDE. Accordingly, Civil Service Commission Resolution
Nos. 061821 and 061908 dated October 16, 2006 and November 7, 2006,
respectively, as well as its Order dated December 11,2006 placing respondent
under preventive suspension are hereby REINSTATED. The CSC is ordered to
proceed hearing the administrative case against respondent with dispatch.