|chanrobles.

com
ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary

Tweet
Like Share 0 Share
Search

PhilippineSupremeCourtJurisprudence>Year2015>June2015Decisions>G.R.No.191787,June22,2015
MACARIOCATIPON,JR.,Petitioner,v.JEROMEJAPSON,Respondent.:

Search

G.R.No.191787,June22,2015MACARIOCATIPON,JR.,Petitioner,v.JEROMEJAPSON,Respondent.

ChanRoblesOnLineBarReview

SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.191787,June22,2015

MACARIOCATIPON,JR.,Petitioner,v.JEROMEJAPSON,Respondent.

DECISION

DELCASTILLO,J.:

ThisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari1seekstosetasidetheDecember11,2009Decision2oftheCourt
of Appeals (CA) in CAG.R. SP No. 94426 affirming the July 6, 2005 Decision3 of the Civil Service
CommissionCordillera Administrative Region (CSCCAR) in CAR05034DC, as well as its March 17,
2010Resolution4denyingpetitioner'sMotionforReconsideration.5

FactualAntecedents

Thefactsareasfollows:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

PetitionerMacarioU.Catipon,Jr.istheholderofaBachelor'sDegreeinCommercefrom
theBaguioCollegesFoundation.Whenapplyingforgraduation,hewasallowedtojointhe
graduationceremoniesdespiteadeficiencyof1.5unitsinMilitaryScience,pursuanttoa
schoolpolicyallowingstudentswithdeficienciesofnotmorethan12unitstobeincluded
in the list of graduates. However, a restriction came after, which is, that the deficiency
mustbecuredbeforethestudentcanbeconsideredagraduate.
DebtKollectCompany,Inc.
ha1985,petitionerfoundemploymentwiththeSocialSecuritySystem(SSS)inBangued,
Abra.

SometimeinSeptember1993,thepersonnelheadoftheSSSinBangued,Abrainformed
petitionerthattheCivilServiceCommissionwasconductingaCareerServiceProfessional
Examination (CSPE) in October of the same year. Petitioner filed an application to take
the examination, believing that the CSC still allowed CSPE applicants to substitute the
length of their government service for any academic deficiency which they may have.
However, the abovementioned policy of the CSC had been discontinued since January
1993pursuanttoCivilServiceCommissionMemorandumCircularNo.42,Seriesof1991
andOfficeMemo.No.63,Seriesof1992.

Nevertheless,petitionertooktheCSPEtestsonOctober17,1993andobtainedaratingof
80.52%. Eventually, petitioner was promoted to Senior Analyst and OfficerinCharge
Branch Head of the SSS at Bangued, Abra. hi October 1995, he finally eliminated his
deficiencyof1.5unitsinMilitaryScience.

On March 10, 2003, respondent Jerome Japson, a former Senior Member Services
Representative of SSS Bangued, filed a lettercomplaint with the Civil Service
CommissionCAR Regional Director, alleging that petitioner made deliberate false entries
ChanRoblesIntellectualProperty in his CSPE application, specifically, that he obtained his college degree in 1993 when
Division actually he graduated in 1995 only, after removing his deficiency of 1.5 units in Military
Education. Also, that petitioner was not qualified to take the CSPE examination in 1993
sincehewasnotyetthenagraduateofafouryearcollegecourse,contrarytotheentry

June-2015 Jurisprudence
A.C. No. 720, June 17, 2015 FRANCISCO CAOILE,
Complainant, v. ATTY. MARCELINO MACARAEG,
Respondent.
A.C. No. 6681, June 17, 2015 VICTOR D. DE LOS
SANTOS II, Complainant, v. ATTY. NESTOR C.
BARBOSA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 189255, June 17, 2015 JESUS G. REYES,
Petitioner, v. GLAUCOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION,
INC.,EYEREFERRALCENTERANDMANUELB.AGULTO,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 200942, June 16, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. JORIE WAHIMAN Y
RAYOS,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 196278, June 17, 2015 CE CASECNAN
WATERANDENERGYCOMPANY,INC.,Petitioner,v.THE
PROVINCE OF NUEVA ECIJA, THE OFFICE OF THE
PROVINCIAL ASSESSOR OF NUEVA ECIJA, AND THE
OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF NUEVA
ECIJA, AS REPRESENTED BY HON. AURELIO UMALI,
HON. FLORANTE FAJARDO AND HON. EDILBERTO
PANCHO, RESPECTIVELY, OR THEIR LAWFUL
SUCCESSORS, RESPONDENTS, NATIONAL IRRIGATION
ADMINISTRATION AND DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, AS
NECESSARYPARTIES.
G.R. No. 196707, June 17, 2015 SPOUSES NILO
ANDERLINDAMERCADO,Petitioners,v.LANDBANKOF
THEPHILIPPINES,Respondent.
A.C. No. 5067, June 29, 2015 CORAZON M.
DALUPAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. GLENN C. GACOTT,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 188069, June 17, 2015 REYNALDO P.
BASCARA, Petitioner, v. SHERIFF ROLANDO G. JAVIER
ANDEVANGELINEPANGILINAN,Respondent.
G.R. No. 194129, June 15, 2015 PO1 CRISPIN
OCAMPO Y SANTOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
inhisapplicationform.
After preliminary investigation, petitioner was charged with Dishonesty, Falsification of
Officialdocuments,GraveMisconductandConductPrejudicialtotheBestInterestofthe
ServicebytheCSCCAR.6 cralawlawlibrary
Respondent'sLetterComplaint7againstpetitionerwasdocketedasCSCDisciplinaryAdministrativeCase
No.BB03006.
In his Answer,8 petitioner essentially pleaded good faith, lack of malice, and honest mistake. He
maintained that at the time of his application to take the CSPE, he was of the honest belief that the
policyoftheCSCthatanydeficiencyintheapplicant'seducationalrequirementmaybesubstitutedby
hislengthofservicewasstillsubsisting.
On July 6, 2005, the CSCCAR, through Director IV Atty. Lorenzo S. Danipog, rendered a Decision9
containingthefollowingpronouncements: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Clearly, respondent Catipon is not without any fault under the foregoing circumstances.
TheonlyissuenowleftiswithrespecttotheparticularoffenseforwhichCatiponmaybe
held responsible. Respondent Catipon is charged (with) four offenses: Dishonesty,
FalsificationofOfficialDocuments,GraveMisconductandConductPrejudicialtotheBest
InterestoftheService.
The key document allegedly falsified in this case is the Application Form x x x of
respondentCatiponforthepurposeoftakingtheCSProfessionalExaminationscheduled
onOctober17,1993.Closeandcarefulperusalofthesaidapplicationformrevealsthat
mostoftheentriesfilledupbyrespondentaretypewritten.Theonlyentrieshandwritten
by respondent are those corresponding to "Year Graduated" and "School Where
Graduated"whichwereansweredbyMacariowith"1984"and"BCF"respectively.Another
handwritten entry is with respect to "Degree Finished", the handwritten "BSC entry,
however,wasjustsuperimposedonthetypewritten"Commerce".
The fact that majority of the entries or data in the application form is typewritten
suggeststhatthesaidapplicationformwasconsciouslydraftedandmeticulouslyprepared
before its actual submission to the CSC for processing. They are relevant and material
entries or data sought from respondent. It is worth emphasizing however that the pre
drafted application form, considering the typewritten entries, shows respondent's
confusiononhowtomakeentriesthereat.RespondentansweredboththeIFYEScolumn
andIFNOcolumncorrespondingtothequestion"Areyouacollegegraduate"inItem8.x
xx
xxxx
The manner that Item 8 was filled up by respondent Catipon shows lack of deliberate
intenttodefraudthegovernment.Hemanifestedinhisapplicationhisuncertaintyonhow
to take the fact that he only lacks 1.5 units Military Science to be conferred a graduate
status, visavis the CSC policy on educational requirement. Though the entry
"undergrad" was erased, the CSC employee who processed the application would have
doubted the truthfulness and authenticity of respondent's entries in Item 8 of the
ApplicationForm,andthustheeducationalstatusofMacario.xxx
xxxx
Catipon had tried to show the real state of the matter regarding his educational
attainmentascanbededucedfromthemannerheansweredItemNo.8intheapplication
form.Thismaybetakenasgoodfaith,whichwillservetomitigateanyliabilityincurred
byrespondentCatipon.Thepremeditatedintenttodeceiveorwillfullydistortthefactsin
this case is not present. The acts of Catipon do not even show blatant disregard of an
established rule or a clear intent to violate the law if at all, there was attempt to reveal
thetruthtotheexaminationdivisionprocessingtheapplication.
xxxx
With [regard] to the eligibility earned by respondent Macario in view of his passing the
October17,1993CareerServiceProfessionalExamination,thesameneedstoberevoked
beingthefruitofapoisonoustree,sotospeak.Paragraph2ofSec.6,Rulen,Omnibus
RulesImplementingBookVofExecutiveOrderNo.292states: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Provided that when an applica[nt] for examination is found to have xxx
intentionally made any false statement of any material fact in his
application,xxxtheCommissionshallinvalidatesuchexaminationxxx.
With the foregoing, respondent Macario U. Catipon, Jr., Senior Analyst and OIC Branch
Head, Social Security System, Bangued, Abra, is hereby exonerated of the charges
Dishonesty, Falsification of Official Documents and Grave Misconduct. However,
respondentisfoundguiltyofConductPrejudicialtotheBestInterestoftheService.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the imposable
penalty on the first offense of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service is
suspensionofsixmonthsandonedaytooneyear.
Under Section 53 of the same Rules, good faith is enumerated as one mitigating
circumstance. Thus, respondent Macario Catipon, Jr. is hereby meted a penalty of six
monthsandonedaysuspension,withoutpay,whichistheminimumperiodofthepenalty
attached to the offense committed. The Career Service Professional eligibility of
respondent is also ordered revoked, without prejudice however to retaking of the said
examination. Thus, Catipon, after serving suspension herein provided should not be
allowedtogobacktohiscurrentpositionwithoutCSProfessionaleligibility.Consequently,
incaserespondentCatiponfailstoretakeorpassCSPE,afterservinghissuspension,he
maybedemotedtoanyavailablepositionthatfitshissubprofessionaleligibility.10 cralawlawlibrary
Petitioner moved for reconsideration,11 but the CSCCAR sustained its judgment in a March 23, 2006
Decision,12whichcontainedthefollowingpronouncement: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
CatiponalsoassertedthatinviewofhisexonerationofDishonesty,FalsificationofOfficial
DocumentsandGraveMisconduct,thereisnolongeranybasistoholdrespondentguilty
ofConductPrejudicialtotheBestInterestoftheService.Thiscontentioniswithoutlegal
basis. In the case of Philippine Retirement Authority vs. Rupa 363 SCRA 480, the
HonorableSupremeCourtheldasfollows:
Under the Civil Service laws and rules, there is no description of what specific acts
constitutethegraveoffenseofConductPrejudicialtotheBestInterestoftheService.
 G.R. No. 185407, June 22, 2015 SIO TIAT KING,
Petitioner, v. VICENTE G. LIM, MICHAEL GEORGE O.
LIM, MATHEW VINCENT O. LIM, MEL PATRICK O. LIM,
MOISES FRANCIS W. LIM, MARVIN JOHN W. LIM, AND
SAARSTAHLPHILIPPINES,INC.,Respondents.
A.C. No. 5686, June 16, 2015 TEODULO F.
ENRIQUEZ, Complaint, v. ATTY. EDILBERTO B.
LAVADIA,JR.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 199777, June 17, 2015 HEIRS OF DATU
DALANDAG KULI, REPRESENTED BY DATU CULOT
DALANDAG, Petitioners, v. DANIEL R. PIA, FILOMENA
FOLLOSCO,ANDJOSEFOLLOSCO,SR.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 183398, June 22, 2015 CLODUALDA D.
DAACO, Petitioner, v. VALERIANA ROSALDO YU,
Respondent.
G.R.No.182648,June17,2015HERMANMEDINA,
Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 191787, June 22, 2015 MACARIO
CATIPON, JR., Petitioner, v. JEROME JAPSON,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 207815, June 22, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. JOSE SALVADOR
A.K.A."FELIX",AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 197923, June 22, 2015 RUBY RUTH S.
SERRANO MAHILUM, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES
EDILBERTOILANOANDLOURDESILANO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 179789, June 17, 2015 PINEWOOD
MARINE (PHILS.), INC., Petitioner, v. EMCO PLYWOOD
CORPORATION, EVER COMMERCIAL CO., LTD., DALIAN
OCEAN SHIPPING CO., AND SHENZHEN GUANGDA
SHIPPINGCO.,Respondents.
A.M. No. P102840 (Formerly A.M. No. 10787
MTC), June 23, 2015 OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MS. FLORED L.
NICOLAS, FORMER COURT INTERPRETER AND
OFFICERINCHARGE MS. ERLINDA U. CABRERA,
FORMERCLERKOFCOURTIIANDMR.EDWINSANTOS,
CLERK OF COURT II, ALL OF THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT,GUIGUINTO,BULACAN,Respondents.
G.R. No. 179025, June 17, 2015 CEBU STATE
COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (CSCST),
REPRESENTED BY ITS INCUMBENT PRESIDENT,
Petitioner,v.LUISS.MISTERIO,GABRIELS.MISTERIO,
FRANCIS S. MISTERIO, THELMA S. MISTERIO, AND
ESTELAS.MISTERIOTAGIMACRUZ,Respondent.
G.R. No. 203023, June 17, 2015 PHILIPPINE
COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE CORPORATION AND
PHILCOMSATHOLDINGSCORPORATION,Petitioners,v.
SANDIGANBAYAN 5TH DIVISION AND PRESIDENTIAL
COMMISSIONONGOODGOVERNMENT,Respondent.
G.R.No.171095,June22,2015MAYORMARCIAL
VARGAS AND ENGR. RAYMUNDO DEL ROSARIO,
Petitioners,v.FORTUNATOCAJUCOM,Respondent.
G.R. No. 179457, June 22, 2015 WILFREDO DE
VERA, EUFEMIO DE VERA, ROMEO MAPANAO, JR.,
ROBERTO VALDEZ, HIROHITO ALBERTO, APARICIO
RAMIREZ, SR., ARMANDO DE VERA, MARIO DE VERA,
RAMIL DE VERA, EVER ALMOGELA ALDA, JUANITO
RIBERAL, REPRESENTED BY PACITA PASENA CONDE,
ANACLETO PASCUA, ISIDRO RAMIREZ, REPRESENTED
BY MARIANO BAINA, SPOUSES TRUDENCIO RAMIREZ
AND ESTARLITA HONRADA, ARNEL DE VERA, ISABELO
MIRETTE, AND ROLANDO DE VERA, Petitioners, v.
SPOUSES EUGEN1O SANTIAGO, SR., AND ESPERANZA
H. SANTIAGO, SPOUSES RAMON CAMPOS AND
WARLITA SANTIAGO, SPOUSES ELIZABETH SANTIAGO
AND ALARIO MARQUEZ, SPOUSES EFRAEM SANTIAGO
AND GLORIA SANTIAGO, SPOUSES EUGENIO
SANTIAGO,JR.ANDALMACAASI,JUPITERSANTIAGO,
ANDJONJONCAMOS,Respondent.
G.R. No. 175795, June 22, 2015 NORMILITO R.
CAGATIN, Petitioner, v. MAGSAYSAY MARITIME
CORPORATION AND C.S.C.S. INTERNATIONAL NV,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 201042, June 16, 2015 DARAGA PRESS,
INC., Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT AND
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAUTONOMOUS REGION
INMUSLIMMINDANAO,Respondent.
G.R. No. 193945, June 22, 2015 REMINGTON
INDUSTRIAL SALES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
MARICALUMMININGCORPORATION,Respondents.
G.R. No. 182255, June 15, 2015 PETRON
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. ARMZ CABERTE,
ANTONIO CABERTE, JR., MICHAEL SERVICIO,* ARIEL
DEVELOS, ADOLFO GESTUPA, ARCHIE PONTERAS,
ARNOLD BLANCO, DANTE MARIANO,* VIRGILIO
GALOROSA,ANDCAMILOTE,*Respondents.
G.R. No. 188839, June 22, 2015 CESAR NAGUIT,
Petitioner,v.SANMIGUELCORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 181057, June 17, 2015 JOSEFINA C.
BILLOTE, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEYSINFACT,
AsalludedtopreviouslyinDecisionNo.CAR05034DC,Catiponisnotwithoutfaultunder
the circumstances. To completely exonerate respondent would be inequitable and
iniquitous considering the totality of events surrounding this case. Though there was no
deliberateintenttofalsifyortomakedishonestentryintheApplicationFormasdeduced
from the manner that the said form was accomplished, the fact that there was indeed
suchdishonestorfalseentryintheCSPEApplicationFormisundisputedlyestablished.In
viewofsuchanestablishedfact,theintegrityoftheCivilServiceExamination,particularly
the CSPE has been blemished which is sufficient to constitute Conduct Prejudicial to the
InterestoftheService.13 cralawlawlibrary
RulingoftheCourtofAppeals
InaPetitionforReviewdocketedwiththeCAasCAG.R.SPNo.94426,petitionerprayedforinjunctive
relief and the reversal of the above CSCCAR decision. He argued that the CSCCAR incorrectly found
himguiltyofconductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservicewhenhehasbeendeclaredinnocent
of the charges of dishonesty, falsification of official documents, and grave misconduct that while the
Supreme Court has held that making false entries in public documents may be considered as conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service, such act must be accompanied by deliberate intent or a
willfuldesiretodefyordisregardestablishedrulesornormsintheservice14andthatwiththefinding
that he merely committed an innocent mistake in filling up the application form for the CSPE, he may
notbefoundguiltyofconductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservice.
OnDecember11,2009,theCArenderedtheassailedDecisiondenyingthepetition,decreeingthus:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
TheDecision[sic]oftheCivilServiceCommissionCordilleraAdministrativeRegiondated
July6,2005andMarch23,2006is[sic]AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.15 cralawlawlibrary
TheCAheldthatinsteadoffilingapetitionforreviewdirectlywithit,petitionershouldhaveinterposed
anappealwiththeCivilServiceCommission(CSC),pursuanttoSections5(A)(1),43and49oftheCSC
UniformRulesonAdministrativeCases16thatbyfilingapetitiondirectlywithit,petitionerviolatedthe
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies that petitioner's case is not exceptional as would
exempt it from the application of the doctrine that per the ruling in Bayaca v. Judge Ramos,17 the
absence of deliberate intent or willful desire to defy or disregard established rules or norms in the
servicedoesnotprecludeafindingofguiltforconductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheserviceand
that petitioner did not act with prudence and care, but instead was negligent, in the filling up of his
CSPEapplicationformandinfailingtoverifybeforehandtherequirementsfortheexamination.
Petitionermovedforreconsideration,buttheCAstooditsground.Hence,theinstantrecourse.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Issues
Petitionerraisesthefollowingissuesforresolution:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(A)
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
FAILEDTOREALIZETHATGIVENTHEIMMEDIATEEFFECTOFTHESUSPENSIONIMPOSED
BY THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONCORDILLERA ADMINISTRATIVE REGION AGAINST
THE PETITIONER, HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN SEEKING JUDICIAL RECOURSE BEFORE (THE
COURTOFAPPEALS)
(B)
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
MISAPPLIED IN THE ABOVEENTITLED CASE THE RULE ON PRIOR EXHAUSTION OF
ADMINISTRATIVEREMEDIES
(C)
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
FAILEDTOCONSIDERTHATTHEPETITIONERACTEDINGOODFAITHANDTHISNEGATES
GUILTFORCONDUCTPREJUDICIALTOTHEBESTINTERESTOFTHESERVICE.18 cralawlawlibrary
Petitioner'sArguments
In his Petition and Reply19 seeking a reversal of the assailed CA dispositions and, consequently,
exonerationfromthechargeofconductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservice,petitionerargues
thathewasconstrainedtofilethepetitionforreviewwiththeCAashisdecreedsixmonthsuspension
was imminent as a consequence of the executory nature of the CSCCAR decision that immediate
judicialinterventionwasnecessaryto"preventseriousinjuryanddamage"tohim,whichiswhyhisCA
petitionincludedaprayerforinjunctivereliefthatthedoctrineofexhaustionofadministrativeremedies
should not have been applied strictly in his case, given the special circumstance that his suspension
would mean loss of his only source of income20 that he should be completely exonerated from the
chargesagainsthim,sinceconductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservicemustbeaccompanied
by deliberate intent or a willful desire to defy or disregard established rules or norms in the service
whichisabsentinhiscaseandthathiscareerserviceprofessionaleligibilityshouldnotberevokedin
theinterestofjusticeandinthespiritofthepolicywhichpromotesandpreservescivilserviceeligibility.
Respondent'sArguments
In his Comment21 seeking denial of the petition, respondent counters that completion of all the
academicrequirementsandnotmerelyattendanceatgraduationritesconfersthenecessarydegree
which qualifies a student to take the CSPE that petitioner's claim that he is a graduate as of 1984 is
beliedbyhisTranscriptofRecords22andotherpiecesofevidencesubmitted,whichreflectthedateof
hisgraduationasOctober1995oraftercompletionofhis1.5unitdeficiencyinMilitarySciencethat
petitioner cannot claim to suffer irreparable injury or damage as a result of the CSCCAR's Decision,
whichisvalidandbindingthattherevocationofpetitioner'seligibilityisonlyproper,sincehewasthen
not qualified when he took the CSPE that the CSCCAR was correct in finding that petitioner's act
compromised the image and integrity of the civil service, which justified the imposition of a
corresponding penalty that this Court in the Rupa case made it clear that the act of making false
entries in public documents constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, a grave
offense punishable by suspension for six months and one day to one year for the first offense, and
dismissal for the second offense and that indeed, petitioner violated the doctrines of primary
jurisdictionandexhaustionofadministrativeremedieswhenheproceededdirectlytotheCA,insteadof
filinganappealwiththeCSC. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
OurRuling
WILLIAM C. BILLOTE AND SEGUNDO BILLOTE,
Petitioner, v. IMELDA SOLIS, SPOUSES MANUEL AND
ADELAIDA DALOPE, SPOUSES VICTOR AND REMEDIOS
BADAR, REGISTER OF DEEDS (LINGAYEN,
PANGASINAN), AND HON. MELITON EMUSLAN,
PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 47, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT,URDANETACITY,Respondent.
G.R. No. 207134, June 16, 2015 AKSYON
MAGSASAKAPARTIDO TINIG NG MASA (AKMAPTM),
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
RESPONDENT, ABANTE KATUTUBO (ABANTE KA),
FROILANM.BACUNGANANDHERMENEGILDODUMLAO,
PetitionersinIntervention.
G.R. No. 208341, June 17, 2015 OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. MA. NIMFA P. DE VILLA,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 214453, June 17, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. BERNABE P.
PALANASALIAS"ABE",AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 204095, June 15, 2015 DR. JAIME T.
CRUZ, Petitioner, v. FELICISIMO V. AGAS, JR.,
Respondent.
A.C.No.5732,June16,2015ALFREDOC.OLVIDA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. ARNEL C. GONZALES,
Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ152426 [Formerly A.M. No. 05383
MTC], June 16, 2015 OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE ALEXANDER
BALUT,Respondent.
G.R.No.184130,June29,2015SANDRAM.CAM,
Petitioner,v.ORLANDOC.CASIMIRO,INHISCAPACITY
AS ACTING OMBUDSMAN, MOTHALIB C. ONOS, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PROSECUTION AND
MONITORING BUREAU OF THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, ROSANO A. OLIVA AND LOURDES S.
PADRE SAN JUAN, IN THEIR CAPACITIES AS GRAFT
INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION OFFICERS,
IGNACIO "IGGY" ARROYO, JUAN MIGUEL "MIKEY"
ARROYOANDRESTITUTOMOSQUEDA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 204845, June 15, 2015 BELCHEM
PHILIPPINES, INC/UNITED PHILIPPINE LINES,
FERNANDO T. LISING, Petitioners, v. EDUARDO A.
ZAFRA,JR.,Respondent.
G.R.No.195513,June22,2015MARLONBEDUYA,
ROSARIO DUMAS* ALEX LEONOZA, RAMBLO FAJARDO,
HARLAN LEONOZA, ALVIN ABUYOT, DEVDO
URSABIA,** BERNIE BESONA, ROMEO ONANAD,***
ARMANDO LIPORADA,**** FRANKFER ODULIO,
MARCELO MATA, ALEX COLOCADO, JOJO PACATANG,
RANDYGENODIAANDISABINOB.ALARMA,JR.,******
PETITIONERS, VS. ACE PROMOTION AND MARKETING
CORPORATION AND GLEN******** HERNANDEZ,
Respondents.
G.R.No.209535,June15,2015TERESITAS.LEE,
Petitioner,v.LUIMANCHONG,Respondent.
G.R. No. 209830, June 17, 2015 MITSUBISHI
MOTORS PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
BUREAUOFCUSTOMS,Respondent.
G.R. No. 205316, June 29, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.ROMEODECASTRO
ANDRANDOLF[1]PABANIL,AccusedAppellants.
G.R.No.207804,June17,2015ACENAVIGATION
COMPANY AND VELA INTERNATIONAL MARINE
LIMITED, Petitioners, v. SANTOS D. GARCIA,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 186597, June 17, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. VICTORIA R. ARAMBULO
ANDMIGUELARAMBULO,JR.,Respondents.
G.R. No. 206957, June 17, 2015 CHERITH A.
BUCAL,Petitioner,v.MANNYP.BUCAL,Respondent.
G.R.No.185592,June15,2015GEORGEC.FONG,
Petitioner,v.JOSEV.DUEAS,Respondent.
G.R. No. 182926, June 22, 2015 ANA LOU B.
NAVAJA,Petitioner,v.HON.MANUELA.DECASTRO,OR
THE ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE OF MCTC JAGNA
GARCIAHERNANDEZ,DKTPHILS.,INC.,REPRESENTED
BYATTY.EDGARBORJE,Respondents.
G.R. No. 211027, June 29, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. JOSE BRONIOLA @
ASOT,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 211027, June 29, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. JOSE BRONIOLA @
ASOT,AccusedAppellant.
G.R.No.199568, June 17, 2015DOHLEPHILMAN
MANNING AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM) LIMITED
AND/OR CAPT. MANOLO T. GACUTAN, Petitioners, v.
HEIRS OF ANDRES G. GAZZINGAN, REPRESENTED BY
LENIEL.GAZZINGAN,Respondents.
G.R. No. 181756, June 15, 2015 MACTANCEBU
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY (MCIAA),
TheCourtdeniesthePetition.
Ourfundamentallaw,particularlySections2(1)and3ofArticleDCB,statethat
Section2.(1)Thecivilserviceembracesallbranches,subdivisions,instrumentalitiesand
agenciesoftheGovernment,includinggovernmentownedorcontrolledcorporationswith
originalcharters.
Section 3. The Civil Service Commission, as the central personnel agency of the
Government, shall establish a career service and adopt measures to promote morale,
efficiency,integrity,responsiveness,progressiveness,andcourtesyinthecivilservice.It
shall strengthen the merit and rewards system, integrate all human resources
developmentprogramsforalllevelsandranks,andinstitutionalizeamanagementclimate
conducive to public accountability. It shall submit to the President and the Congress an
annualreportonitspersonnelprograms.
Thus, "the CSC, as the central personnel agency of the Government, has jurisdiction over disputes
involving the removal and separation of all employees of government branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities and agencies, including governmentowned or controlled corporations with original
charters.Simplyput,itisthesolearbiterofcontroversiesrelatingtothecivilservice."23
InlinewiththeaboveprovisionsoftheConstitutionanditsmandateasthecentralpersonnelagencyof
governmentandsolearbiterofcontroversiesrelatingtothecivilservice,theCSCadoptedMemorandum
Circular No. 19, series of 1999 (MC 19), or the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
CivilService,whichtheCAcitedasthebasisforitspronouncement.Section4thereofprovides:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission
shallhearanddecideadministrativecasesinstitutedby,orbroughtbeforeit,directlyor
onappeal,includingcontestedappointments,andshallreviewdecisionsandactionsofits
officesandoftheagenciesattachedtoit.
ExceptasotherwiseprovidedbytheConstitutionorbylaw,theCivilServiceCommission
shallhavethefinalauthoritytopassupontheremoval,separationandsuspensionofall
officers and employees in the civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct,
disciplineandefficiencyofsuchofficersandemployees.
AspointedoutbytheCA,pursuanttoSection5(A)(1)ofMC19,theCivilServiceCommissionProper,or
CommissionProper,shallhavejurisdictionoverdecisionsofCivilServiceRegionalOfficesbroughtbefore
itonpetitionforreview.AndunderSection43,"decisionsofheadsofdepartments,agencies,provinces,
cities,municipalitiesandotherinstrumentalitiesimposingapenaltyexceedingthirtydayssuspensionor
fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, may be appealed to the Commission Proper within a
period of fifteen days from receipt thereof."24 "Commission Proper" refers to the Civil Service
CommissionCentralOffice.25
ItisonlythedecisionoftheCommissionProperthatmaybebroughttotheCAonpetitionforreview,
underSection50ofMC19,whichprovidesthus: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Section50.PetitionforReviewwiththeCourtofAppeals.Apartymayelevateadecision
oftheCommissionbeforetheCourtofAppealsbywayofapetitionforreviewunderRule
43ofthe1997RevisedRulesofCourt.26 cralawlawlibrary
Thus, we agree with the CA's conclusion that in filing his petition for review directly with it from the
CSCCAR Regional Director, petitioner failed to observe the principle of exhaustion of administrative
remedies.Ascorrectlystatedbytheappellatecourt,nonexhaustionofadministrativeremediesrenders
petitioner'sCApetitionprematureandthusdismissible.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that "before a party is allowed to seek
the intervention of the court, he or she should have availed himself or herself of all the means of
administrative processes afforded him or her. Hence, if resort to a remedy within the administrative
machinerycanstillbemadebygivingtheadministrativeofficerconcernedeveryopportunitytodecide
onamatterthatcomeswithinhisorherjurisdiction,thensuchremedyshouldbeexhaustedfirstbefore
the court's judicial power can be sought. The premature invocation of the intervention of the court is
fatal to one's cause of action. The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is based on
practical and legal reasons. The availment of administrative remedy entails lesser expenses and
provides for a speedier disposition of controversies. Furthermore, the courts of justice, for reasons of
comity and convenience, will shy away from a dispute until the system of administrative redress has
beencompletedandcompliedwith,soastogivetheadministrativeagencyconcernedeveryopportunity
to correct its error and dispose of the case."27 Indeed, the administrative agency concerned in this
case the Commission Proper is in the "best position to correct any previous error committed in its
forum."28
TheCAisfurtherjustifiedinrefusingtotakecognizanceofthepetitionforreview,as"[t]hedoctrineof
primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a
controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence."29 When petitioner's recourse lies in an appeal to the Commission Proper in accordance
with the procedure prescribed in MC 19, the CA may not be faulted for refusing to acknowledge
petitionerbeforeit.
We likewise affirm the CA's pronouncement that petitioner was negligent in filling up his CSPE
applicationformandinfailingtoverifybeforehandthespecificrequirementsfortheCSPEexamination.
Petitioner'sclaimofgoodfaithandabsenceofdeliberateintentorwillfuldesiretodefyordisregardthe
rulesrelativetotheCSPEisnotadefenseastoexoneratehimfromthechargeofconductprejudicialto
the best interest of the service under our legal system, ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliancetherewith.30 Moreover, petitioner as mere applicant for acceptance into the professional
servicethroughtheCSPEcannotexpecttobeservedonasilverplattertheobligationtoknowwhatis
requiredfortheexaminationfallsonhim,andnottheCSCorhiscolleaguesinoffice.Asaptlyruledby
theappellatecourt:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In Bacaya31v. Ramos, the Supreme Court found respondent judge guilty of both
negligenceandconductprejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservicewhenheissuedan
arrestwarrantdespitethedeletionofthepenaltyofimprisonmentimposedonanaccused
inaparticularcriminalcase.Respondentjudgeinthesaidcaseclaimedthattheissuance
of the warrant was a mistake, done in good faith and that it has been a practice in his
officefortheClerkofCourttostudymotionsandthathewouldsimplysigntheprepared
order.TheSupremeCourtrejectedhisdefenseandstatedthatnegligenceisthefailureto
observesuchcareasareasonablyprudentandcarefulpersonwoulduseunderordinary
circumstances. An act of the will is necessary&r deliberate intent to exist such is not
necessaryinanactofnegligence.
Here, petitioner failed to verify the requirements before filing his application to take the
CSPE exam. He simply relied on his prior knowledge of the rules, particularly, that he
 Petitioner, v. CITY OF LAPULAPU AND ELENA T.
PACALDO,Respondents.
G.R. No. 179226, June 29, 2015 MA. SUSANA A.
AWATIN, AND ON BEHALF OF
HEIRS/BENEFICIARIES OF DECEASED ALBERTO
AWATIN, Petitioner, v. AVANTGARDE SHIPPING
CORPORATION AND MRS. DORA G. PASCUAL,
OFFSHORE MARITIME MANAGEMENT INT'L., INC.
(SWITZERLAND), SEABLUK TRESURE ISLAND,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 191899, June 22, 2015 JULIUS R.
TAGALOG, Petitioner, v. CROSSWORLD MARINE
SERVICES INC., CAPT. ELEASAR G. DIAZ AND/OR
CHIOS MARITIME LTD. ACTING IN BEHALF OF OCEAN
LIBERTYLTD,Respondents.
G.R.No.188174,June29,2015DEPARTMENTOF
AGRARIAN REFORM, THROUGH ITS PROVINCIAL
AGRARIANREFORMOFFICEROFDAVAOCITY,ANDTHE
MUNICIPALAGRARIANREFORMOFFICEROFCALINAN,
DAVAO CITY, Petitioners, v. WOODLAND AGRO
DEVELOPMENT,INC.,Respondent.
G.R. No. 209338, June 29, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. BIENVENIDO
MIRANDAYFELICIANO,AccusedAppellant.
G.R. No. 198515, June 15, 2015 DOMINADOR
MALABUNGA,* JR., Petitioner, v. CATHAY PACIFIC
STEELCORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 179874, June 22, 2015 ADELFA DIO
TOLENTINO, VIRGINIA DIO, RENATO DIO, AND HEIRS
OF ROBERTO DIO, REPRESENTED BY ROGER DIO,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MARIA JERERA AND EBON
LATAGAN, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: MA.
JANELITA LATAGANBULAWAN, YVONNE LATAGAN,
LESLIE LATAGAN, RODOLFO H. LATAGAN, EMMANUEL
NOEL H. LATAGAN, GEMMA LATAGANDE LEON, MARIE
GLEN LATAGANCERUJALES, AND CELESTE LATAGAN
BOANDSALVEVDA.DEJERERA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 199522, June 22, 2015 RICKY
DINAMLING, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.
G.R. No. 182754, June 29, 2015 SPOUSES
CRISPIN AQUINO AND TERESA V. AQUINO, HEREIN
REPRESENTEDBYTHEIRATTORNEYINFACT,AMADOR
D. LEDESMA, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES EUSEBIO
AGUILARANDJOSEFINAV.AGUILAR,Respondents.
G.R. No. 210055, June 22, 2015 THE ESTATE OF
THE LATE JUAN B. GUTIERREZ, REPRESENTED BY
ANTONIA S. GUTIERREZ, (FOR HERSELF AND IN HER
CAPACITY AS DULYAPPOINTED SPECIAL
ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JUAN B.
GUTIERREZ), Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF SPOUSE JOSE
AND GRACITA CABANGON, REPRESENTED BY BLANCA
CABANGAON,JUDGECADERP.INDAR,ALHAJ,BRANCH
14,12THJUDICIALREGIONCOTABATOCITY,ANDTHE
COURTOFAPPEALS,SPECIALFORMER21STDIVISION,
MINDANAO STATION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY,
Respondents.
G.R. No. 162489, June 17, 2015 BERNARDO U.
MESINA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 197582, June 29, 2015 JULIE S.
SUMBILLA, Petitioner, v. MATRIX FINANCE
CORPORATION,Respondent.
G.R. No. 203754, June 16, 2015 FILM
DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioner, v. COLON HERITAGE REALTY
CORPORATION, OPERATOR OF ORIENTE GROUP
THEATERS, REPRESENTED BY ISIDORO A. CANIZARES,
Respondent. [G.R. No. 204418] FILM DEVELOPMENT
COUNCIL OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. CITY OF
CEBUANDSMPRIMEHOLDINGS,INC.,Respondents.
G.R. No. 195247, June 29, 2015 ANASTACIO
TINGALAN, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY:
ROMEO L. TINGALAN, ELPEDIO L. TINGALAN, JOHNNY
L. TINGALAN AND LAURETA T. DELA CERNA,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES RONALDO AND WINONA
MELLIZA,Respondents.
G.R. No. 194239, June 16, 2015 WEST TOWER
CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE
RESIDENTS OF WEST TOWER CONDOMINIUM AND IN
REPRESENTATION OF BARANGAY BANGKAL, AND
OTHERS, INCLUDING MINORS AND GENERATIONS YET
UNBORN, Petitioners, v. FIRST PHILIPPINE
INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, FIRST GEN
CORPORATION AND THEIR RESPECTIVE BOARD OF
DIRECTORSANDOFFICERS,JOHNDOES,ANDRICHARD
DOES,Respondents.
A.C.No.6484,June16,2015ADELITAB.LLUNAR,
Complainant, v. ATTY. ROMULO RICAFORT,
Respondent.
G.R. No. 193919, June 15, 2015 BIAN RURAL
BANK,Petitioner,v.JOSEWILLELMINOG.CARLOSAND
MARTINA ROSA MARIA LINA G. CARLOSTRAN,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEYINFACT, ATTY.
EDWIND.BALLESTEROS,Respondents.
could substitute his deficiency in Military Science with the length of his government
service. He cannot lay blame on the personnel head of the SSSBangued, Abra, who
allegedlydidnotinformhimofthepertinentrulescontainedinCivilServiceMemorandum
CircularNo.42,Seriesof1991.For,[if]heweretrulyareasonablyprudentandcareful
THE
person,petitionerhimselfshouldhaveverifiedfromtheCSCtherequirementsimposedon
prospective examinees. In so doing, he would certainly have been informed of the new
CSC policy disallowing substitution of one's length of government service for academic
deficiencies.NeithershouldpetitionerhavereliedonanunnamedCivilServiceemployee's
advicesinceitwasnotshownthatthelatterwasauthorizedtogiveinformationregarding
the examination nor that said employee was competent and capable of giving correct
information.HisfailuretoverifytheactualCSPErequirementswhichareasonablyprudent
andcarefulpersonwouldhavedoneconstitutesnegligence.Thoughhisfailurewasnota
deliberateactofthewill,suchisnotnecessaryinanactofnegligenceand,asinBacaya,
negligence is not inconsistent with a finding of guilt for conduct prejudicial to the best
interestoftheservice.32
cralawlawlibrary
The corresponding penalty for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service may be imposed
uponanerringpublicofficeraslongasthequestionedactorconducttaintstheimageandintegrityof
the office and the act need not be related to or connected with the public officer's official functions.
Under our civil service laws, there is no concrete description of what specific acts constitute conduct
prejudicialtothebestinterestoftheservice,butthefollowingactsoromissionshavebeentreatedas
such: misappropriation of public funds abandonment of office failure to report back to work without
priornoticefailuretosafekeeppublicrecordsandpropertymakingfalseentriesinpublicdocuments
falsificationofcourtordersajudge'sactofbrandishingagun,andthreateningthecomplainantsduring
a traffic altercation a court interpreter's participation in the execution of a document conveying
complainant's property which resulted in a quarrel in the latter's family selling fake Unified Vehicular
Volume Program exemption cards to his officemates during office hours a CA employee's forging of
receipts to avoid her private contractual obligations a Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)
employee'sactofrepeatedlychanginghisIPaddress,whichcausednetworkproblemswithinhisoffice
and allowed him to gain access to the entire GSIS network, thus putting the system in a vulnerable
stateofsecurity33 a public prosecutor's act of signing a motion to dismiss that was not prepared by
him,butbyajudge34andateacher'sactofdirectlysellingabooktoherstudentsinviolationofthe
Code of Ethics for Professional Teachers.35 In petitioner's case, his act of making false entries in his
CSPE application undoubtedly constitutes conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service the
absence of a willful or deliberate intent to falsify or make dishonest entries in his application is
immaterial, for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service "may or may not be
characterizedbycorruptionorawillfulintenttoviolatethelawortodisregardestablishedrules."36
Finally,theCourtcannotconsiderpetitioner'spleathat"intheinterestofjusticeandinthespiritofthe
policy which promotes and preserves civil service eligibility," his career service professional eligibility
should not be revoked. The act of using a fake or spurious civil service eligibility for one's benefit not
only amounts to violation of the civil service examinations or CSPE it also results in prejudice to the
governmentandthepublicingeneral.Itisatransgressionofthelawwhichhasnoplaceinthepublic
service.37"Assumptionofpublicofficeisimpressedwiththeparamountpublicinterestthatrequiresthe
higheststandardsofethicalconduct.Apersonaspiringforpublicofficemustobservehonesty,candor,
andfaithfulcompliancewiththelaw.Nothinglessisexpected."38
WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIED.TheDecember11,2009DecisionandMarch17,2010Resolution
oftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.SPNo.94426areAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Carpio,(Chairperson),Perez,*Mendoza,andJardeleza,**JJ.,concur.
Endnotes:
*PerSpecialOrderNo.2067datedJune22,2015.
**PerSpecialOrderNo.2056datedJune10,2015.
1Rollo,pp.930.
2Id. at 3547 penned by Associate Justice Antonio L. Villamor and concurred in by
Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes (now a member of this Court) and Japar B.
Dimaampao.
3Id.at1928.
4Id.at3233.
5Id.at4856.
6Id.at3637.
7CArollo,pp.5052.
8Id.at6871.
9Id.at1928.
10Id.at2528.
11Id.at2937.
12Id.at3944.
13Id.at43.
14CitingPhilippineRetirementAuthorityv.Rupa,415Phil.713(2001).
15Rollo,p.46.
16
Section 5. Jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission Proper. The Civil Service
CommissionPropershallhavejurisdictionoverthefollowingcases:
A.Disciplinary
 1.DecisionsofCivilServiceRegionalOfficesbroughtbeforeitonpetitionforreview
G.R. No. 191591, June 17, 2015 DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Petitioner, v. xxxx
FOUNDATIONSPECIALISTS,INC.,Respondent.
Section43.Filing of Appeals. Decisions of heads of departments, agencies, provinces,
G.R. No. 205875, June 30, 2015 LIBERTY
cities,municipalitiesandotherinstrumentalitiesimposingapenaltyexceedingthirty(30)
BROADCASTINGNETWORK,INC.,NOWKNOWNASWI
TRIBE TELECOMS, INC., Petitioner, v. ATLOCOM
days suspension or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, may be appealed to
WIRELESS SYSTEM, INC., Respondent. [G.R. No. theCommissionProperwithinaperiodoffifteen(15)daysfromreceiptthereof.
208916] NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. ATLOCOM WIRELESS IncasethedecisionrenderedbyabureauorofficeheadisappealabletotheCommission,
SYSTEM,INC.,Respondent. thesamemaybeinitiallyappealedtothedepartmentheadandfinallytotheCommission
Proper.Pendingappeal,thesameshallbeexecutoryexceptwherethepenaltyisremoval,
A.M.No.P153322[FormerlyA.M.OCAIPINo.10 in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary
3569P], June 23, 2015 BRANCH CLERK OF COURT concerned.
GAIL M. BACBACDEL ISEN, Complainant, v. ROMAR Q.
MOLINA,Respondent. A notice of appeal including the appeal memorandum shall be filed with the appellate
authority,copyfurnishedthediscipliningoffice.Thelattershallsubmittherecordsofthe
G.R. No. 200898, June 15, 2015 BROWN
case, which shall be systematically and chronologically arranged, paged and securely
MADONNA PRESS INC., THADDEUS ANTHONY A.
CABANGON, FORTUNE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
bound to prevent loss, with its comment, within fifteen (15) days, to the appellate
(NOWFORTUNEGENERALINSURANCECORPORATION) authority.
AND/OR ANTONIO CABANGON CHUA, Petitioners, v.
MARIAROSARIOM.CASAS,Respondent. Section 49. Petition for Review. A complainant may elevate the decision of the Civil
Service Regional Office dismissing a complaint for lack of a primafacie case before the
G.R. No. 200567, June 22, 2015 METROPOLITAN CommissionProperthroughaPetitionforReviewwithinfifteen(15)daysfromthereceipt
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CPR ofsaiddecision.
PROMOTIONS AND MARKETING, INC. AND SPOUSES
CORNELIO P. REYNOSO, JR. AND LEONIZA* F. 17597Phil.86(2009).
REYNOSO,Respondents.
18Rollo,p.22.
G.R.No.203372, June 16, 2015ATTY. CHELOYE.
VELICARIA GARAFIL, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT AND HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL JOSE 19Id.at242249.
ANSELMOI.CADIZ,Respondents.[G.R.No.206290]
ATTY.DINDOG.VENTURANZA,Petitioner,v.OFFICEOF 20CitingPagarav.CourtofAppeals,325Phil.66(1996).
THEPRESIDENT, LEILAM.DELIMA,INHERCAPACITY
AS THE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 21Rollo,pp.98115.
CLARO A. ARELLANO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE
PROSECUTOR GENERAL, AND RICHARD ANTHONY D.
FADULLON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE OFFICERIN 22CArollo,pp.7981.
CHARGEOFTHEOFFICEOFTHECITYPROSECUTOROF
QUEZONCITY,Respondents.[G.R.No.209138]IRMA 23Cabungcalv.MayorLorenzo,623Phil.329,338339(2009).
A. VILLANUEVA AND FRANCISCA B. ROSQUITA,
Petitioners,v.COURTOFAPPEALSANDTHEOFFICEOF 24
THE PRESIDENT, Respondents. [G.R. No. 212030] It will be observed that the enumeration in Section 43 failed to include "Regional
EDDIE U. TAMONDONG, Petitioner, v. EXECUTIVE Offices". Under Section 49, "a complainant may elevate the decision of the Civil Service
SECRETARYPAQUITON.OCHOA,JR.,Respondent. Regional Office dismissing a complaint for lack of a prima facie case before the
CommissionProperthroughaPetitionforReviewwithinfifteen(15)daysfromthereceipt
G.R. No. 203124, June 22, 2015 PROVINCE OF ofsaiddecision."Suchsectionmentionsonly"complainant".Goingbythesetwosections,
LEYTE, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY MR. RODOLFO itwouldappearthatarespondentinadecisionrenderedbyaRegionalOfficewouldhave
BADIABLE,INHISCAPACITYASTHEICOPROVINCIAL norecourse,becauseMC19hasnotgivenhimone.Itis,however,absurdtoassumethat
TREASURER, PROVINCE OF LEYTE, Petitioner, v. decisionsofRegionalOfficesmaynotbeappealedatall,forthentheywouldbesuperior
ENERGYDEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,Respondent. to the Commission Proper, or the courts for that matter. Thus, it must be said that
Section 43 should necessarily include the decisions of Regional Offices as appealable to
G.R. No. 195244, June 22, 2015 THE PEOPLE OF
THEPHILIPPINES,PlaintiffAppellee,v.ALVINESUGON theCommissionProperand,inturn,ultimatelysubjecttojudicialreview.
YAVILA,AccusedAppellant.
25MC19,Section2(c),onCoverageandDefinitionofTerms.
G.R. No. 194192, June 16, 2015 DAVAO CITY
WATER DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL 26Shouldbe"1997RulesofCivilProcedure".
MANAGER, RODORA N. GAMBOA, Petitioner, v.
RODRIGO L. ARANJUEZ, GREGORIO S. CAGULA, 27Maglalang
CELESTINO A. BONDOC, DANILO L. BUHAY, PEDRO E. v. Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), G.R. No.
ALCALA, JOSEPH A. VALDEZ, TITO V. SABANGAN, 190566,December11,2013,712SCRA472,482483.
MARCELINO B. ANINO, JUANITO C. PANSACALA,
JOEMARIE B. ALBA, ANTERO M. YMAS, ROLANDO L. 28PO2Montoyav.PoliceDirectorVarilla,595Phil.507,528(2008).
LARGO, RENEBOY U. ESTEBAN, MANUEL B. LIBANG,
ROMEORICO A. LLANOS, ARTHUR C. BACHILLER, 29Vidad v. Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Branch 42, G.R. No. 98084, October
SOCRATES V. CORCUERA, ALEJANDRO C. PICHON, 18,1993,227SCRA271,276.
GRACIANOA.MONCADA,ROLANDOK.ESCORIAL,NOEL
A. DAGALE, EMILIO S. MOLINA, SHERWIN S. SOLAMO, 30CivilCode,Article3.
FULGENCIO I. DYGUAZO, GUALBERTO S. PAGATPAT,
JOSEPH B. ARTAJO, FELIXBERTO Q. OBENZA,
FLORANTE A. FERRAREN, ELSA A. ELORDE, CARLOS P. 31ShouldbeBayaca.
MORRE, JAMES AQUILINO M. COLOMA, JOAQUIN O.
CADORNA,JR., LORNA M.MAXINO,ROMULOA.REYES, 32Rollo,pp.4446.
NOEL G. LEGASPI, ELEANOR R. LAMOSTE, WELMER E.
CRASCO, DELIO T. OLAER, VICENTE R. MASUCOL, 33 See Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) v. Mayordomo, G.R. No. 191218,
IRENEO A. CUBAL, EDWIN A. DELA PENA, JIMMY A.
TROCIO, WILFREDO L. TORREON, ALEJANDRITO M. May31,2011,649SCRA667.
ALO, RAUL S. SAGA, JOSELITO P. RICONALLA,
TRISEBAL Q. AGUILAR, ARMAN N. LORENZO, SR. AND 34Espinav.Cerujano,573Phil.254(2008).
PEDROC.GUNTING,Respondents.
35Piav.Gervacio,Jr.,G.R.No.172334,June5,2013,697SCRA220.
G.R. No. 167975, June 17, 2015 GILDA
JARDELEZA, (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HER
36Espiav.Cerujano,supranote32at263.
HEIRS, NAMELY: ERNESTO JARDELEZA, JR., TEODORO
MARIA JARDELEZA, ROLANDO L. JARDELEZA, MA.
GLENDAJARDELEZAUY,ANDMELECIOGILJARDELEZA, 37SeeRe: Complaint of the Civil Service Commission, Cordillera Administrative Region,
Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MELECIO AND ELIZABETH BaguioCityAgainstChulyao,MCTCBarlig,MountainProvince,646Phil.34,44(2010).
JARDELEZA, JMB TRADERS, INC., AND TEODORO
JARDELEZA,Respondents. 38Id.

G.R. No. 191197, June 22, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RODRIGO LAPORE,
AccusedAppellant.
Adsby Google CourtDocket CarLaw GR15
G.R. No. 167797, June 15, 2015 METRO MANILA Adsby Google CourtRecords CivilService InsuranceLaw
TRANSIT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. REYNALDO
CUEVAS AND JUNNEL CUEVAS, REPRESENTED BY Adsby Google GRCase GRNo CourtGR
REYNALDOCUEVAS,Respondents.

G.R. No. 193659, June 15, 2015 SPS. FERNANDO BacktoHome|BacktoMain

VERGARA AND HERMINIA VERGARA, Petitioners, v.
ERLINDATORRECAMPOSONKIN,Respondent.

G.R. No. 211499, June 22, 2015 CATHERINE QUICKSEARCH

HIPONIAMAYUGA,Petitioner,v.METROPOLITANBANK
AND TRUST CO., AND ITS BRANCH HEAD, THELMA T.
MAURICIO,ANDBELLEU.AVELINO,Respondents.
 1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
G.R. No. 194516, June 17, 2015 BALDOMERA
FOCULANFUDALAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES DANILO
1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
OCIALANDDAVIDICABONGCARASOCIAL,EVAGRIAF. 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
BAGCAT, CRISTINA G. DOLLISEN, EULALIA F.
VILLACORA, TEOFREDO FUDERANAN, JAIME 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
FUDERANAN, MARIANO FUDERANAN, FILADELFO 1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
FUDERANAN, MUSTIOLA F. MONTEJO, CORAZON
LOGMAO, DIONESIO FUDERANAN, EUTIQUIA 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
FUDERANAN, ASTERIA FUDERANAN, ANTONIO 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
FUDERANAN, ROMEO FUDERANAN, FLORENTINO
FUDERANAN, DOMECIANO FUDERANAN, ERLINDA 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
SOMONTAN, FELICIANA FUDERANAN, BONIFACIO 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
FUDERANAN, QUIRINO FUDERANAN, MA. ASUNCION
FUDERANAN, MARCELINA ARBUTANTE, SALOME 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
GUTUAL, LEONARDO LUCILLA, IMELDA L. ESTOQUE, 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
CIRILA OLANDRIA, TITA G. BONGAY AND MUNICIPAL
ASSESSOROFPANGLAO,BOHOL,Respondents.
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
G.R. No. 211872, June 22, 2015 ROMIL T.
OLAYBAL, Petitioner, v. OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
MANILA, INC. AND OSG SHIPMANAGEMENT [UK] LTD., 2013 2014 2015 2016
Respondents.

G.R. No. 191810, June 22, 2015 JIMMY T. GO

A.K.A. JAIME T. GAISANO, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF
IMMIGRATION AND DEPORTATION AND ITS
COMMISSIONERSANDLUIST.RAMOS,Respondents.
Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
A.C. No. 10138 (Formerly CBD Case No. 061876),
June16,2015ROBERTOP.NONATO,Complainant,v.
ATTY.EUTIQUIOM.FUDOLIN,JR.,Respondent.

G.R. No. 173783, June 17, 2015 RIVIERA GOLF

CLUB, INC., Petitioner, v. CCA HOLDINGS, B.V.,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 211113, June 29, 2015 ADERITO Z.

YUJUICO, Petitioner, v. UNITED RESOURCES ASSET
MANAGEMENT, INC., ATTY. RICHARD J. NETHERCOTT
ANDATTY.HONORATOR.MATABAN,Respondents.

G.R. No. 187487, June 29, 2015 GO TONG

ELECTRICAL SUPPLY CO., INC. AND GEORGE C. GO,
Petitioners, v. BPI FAMILY SAVINGS BANK, INC.,
SUBSTITUTEDBYPHILIPPINEINVESTMENTONE[SPV
AMC],INC.,Respondent.

G.R.No.163116,June29,2015ALLIEDBANKING
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. JESUS S. YUJUICO
(DECEASED), REPRESENTED BY BRENDON V. YUJUICO,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 213792, June 22, 2015 GUILLERMO

WACOY Y BITOL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent G.R. No. 213886 JAMES
QUIBAC Y RAFAEL, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

G.R. No. 156162, June 22, 2015 CCC INSURANCE

CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. KAWASAKI STEEL
CORPORATION, F.F. MAACOP CONSTRUCTION CO.,
INC.,ANDFLORANTEF.MAACOP,Respondents.

A.M. No. P113017 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10

3575P], June 16, 2015 ANONYMOUS LETTER
AGAINST AURORA C. CASTAEDA, CLERK III,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 224, QUEZON CITY,
AND LORENZO CASTAEDA, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL
TRIALCOURT,BRANCH96,QUEZONCITY.

G.R. No. 195424, June 15, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. RUDY NUYOK,
AccusedAppellant.

G.R. No. 201836, June 22, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ALLAN BRITANICO
ANDJOJOBRITANICO,AccusedAppellants.

G.R. No. 204641, June 29, 2015 CAMARINES SUR

IVELECTRICCOOPERATIVE,INC.ANDATTY.VERONICA
T. BRIONES, Petitioners, v. EXPEDITA L. AQUINO,
Respondent.

G.R.No.190236,June15,2015DENNISMORTEL,
Petitioner,v.MICHAELBRUNDIGE,Respondent.

G.R. No. 171284, June 29, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ALFREDO DULIN Y
NARAG,AccusedAppellant.

G.R.Nos.20568586,June22,2015EMMANUELH.
BERALDE, HAYDEE B. OCHE, EDGAR E. FERNANDEZ,
RONALD M. DUMADAUG, WENCESLAO L.
CAMPORENDONDO, OCTAVE BRENDAN N. MARTINEZ,
AVELINA C. NAVA, ALSADOM P. CIRILO, OSCAR H.
GALARAGA, IGNACIO R. ALMARIO, JR., MISAMBO D.
LLEJES, ERNESTO M. MOVILLA, SR., RONALD R.
PANUGALING, NICHOLS M. SULTAN, SR., FRANCISCO
M. VELASCO, SAMUEL G. WENCESLAO, EDMONDO B.
ELECCION, SANNY L. ABDUL, JOEL T. AUTIDA,
ANTONIOC.BAGO,RODOLFOC.BARTIDO,NECTORB.
BASILISCO, GREGORIO Y. CANAMO, TOMAS M.
CANSECO, REYSALVIO M. CARREON, ALEJANDRO A.
CELIS, EMERISA S. BLANCADA, FELIX E. BUGWAT,
RENIEN.BURGOS,DESIDERIOC.CABONITA,RICARDO
P.DAGUMAN,RUBENB.DAVIDE,FELIPEG.DEMETILA,
EDUARDO B. DIAL, EFREN L. ENCALLADO, GETULIO A.
GOHIL, GUMERSINDO C. HAPE, DOMINGO M. LABTON,
ARNOLD B. LIM, LEONARDO G. LOPEZ, SR., ALBINO M.
LECERNAS, JOEL B. LUMERAN, MARTIN C. MAGLINTE,
FOLA.MALAYA,ALFREDOD.MARAVILLAS,MARTINOR.
MENDEZ, MAURO B. NAVAREZ, JR., CARLITO R.
NAVARRO, AGUSTIN C. NOTARTE, JR., GONZALO G.
OCHE, CARLITO G. OTOM, WALTER S. PANOY,
ALEJANDRO T. PADOJAN, SR., GLESERIA L. PELDEROS,
WILSON C. RODRIGUEZ, ARMAN A. ROSALINDA,
ISIDRO M. RUSGAL, ISMAEL M. SANDANG, SR., WEA
MAE B. SALATAN, EDWIN L. SARDIDO, PAULINO T.
SEDIMO,CESARIOA.TANGARO,PABLITOB.TAYURAN,
EDUARDO D. TUBURAN, ARMANDO I. VARGAS, JR.,
RENATO E. LUMANAS,WILFREDOC.PAUSAL,ALFREDO
R. RAMIS, JOSE V. TUGAP, MANUEL G. WENCESLAO,
MARIO D. ALBARAN, EDGAR P. ALSADO, SANTOS T.
AMADO,JR.,CHRISBELA.ANG,BERNARDOC.AYUSTE,
JR., RONALD B. BARTIDO, REYNALDO R. BAURA, SR.,
ANGELITO A. BIMBO, REYNALDO N. CAPUL, SONNY M.
DA VIDE, REYNALDO A. LANTICSE, SR., MARIO M.
LIMPIO,ARGIEA.OTOM,DANILOV.PABLIO,CARLITO
H.PELLERIN,DANILOL.QUIMPAN,MARKANTHONYM.
SALATAN,DANTES.SERAFICA,BUENVENTURAJ.TAUB,
JENRITO S. VIA, ROMULO A. LANIOHAN, JORGE L.
QUIMPAN, ANTONIO C. SALATAN, ARLON C. AYUSTE,
ERNESTO P. MARAVILLAS, DANIEL B. ADONA, AND
WILFREDO M. ALGONES, Petitioners, v. LAPANDAY
AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
(GUIHING PLANTATION OPERATIONS), RICA REGINA
L.DAVILA(CHAIRMAN),EDWINT.FABREGAR,JR.(VP
BANANA PRODUCTION) GERARDO IGNACIO B.
ONGKIKO, (SENIOR VPHR), CELSO S. SANCHEZ
(PRODUCTION MANAGER) AND JESSEPEHINE O.
ALEGRE (AREA ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER),
Respondents. PRESCO A. FUENTES AND BRIAN TAUB,
Petitioners, v. LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL AND
DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION,(GUIHINGPLANTATION
OPERATIONS) RICA REGINA L. DAVILA, CHAIRMAN
EDWIN T. FABREGAR, JR., VPBANANA PRODUCTION
GERARDO IGNACIO B. ONGKIKO, VICEPRESIDENT
HUMANRESOURCESCELSOS.SANCHEZ,PRODUCTION
MANAGER,Respondents.

A.C. No. 9603, June 16, 2015 DOMINIC PAUL D.

LAZARETO, Complainant,v. ATTY. DENNISN.ACORDA,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 210551, June 30, 2015 JOSE J. FERRER,

JR., Petitioner, v. CITY MAYOR HERBERT BAUTISTA,
CITY COUNCIL OF QUEZON CITY, CITY TREASURER OF
QUEZON CITY, AND CITY ASSESSOR OF QUEZON CITY,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 210759, June 23, 2015 CHAIRPERSON

SIEGFRED B. MISON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS
CHAIRPERSON1 OF BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND
DEPORTATION,2 PETITIONER, VS. HON. PAULINO Q.
GALLEGOS,INHISCAPACITYASPRESIDINGJUDGEOF
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTMANILA, BRANCH 47
AND JA HOON KU, Respondents. G.R. No. 211403
CHAIRPERSON SIEGFRED B. MISON, AS THE
CHAIRPERSON OF BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND
DEPORTATION, Petitioner, v. HON. PAULINO Q.
GALLEGOS, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURTMANILA, BRANCH 47 AND JA HOON KU,
Respondents. G.R. No. 211590 CHAIRPERSON
SIEGFRED B. MISON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE
CHAIRPERSON OF BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND
DEPORTATION,Petitioner,v.JAHOONKU,Respondent.

A.M. No. CA1531P (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13

218CAP), June 16, 2015 COMMITTEE ON SECURITY
AND SAFETY, COURT OF APPEALS, Complainant, v.
REYNALDO V. DIANCO CHIEF SECURITY, JOVEN O.
SORIANOSOSSECURITYGUARD3,ANDABELARDOP.
CATBAGANSECURITYGUARD3,Respondents.

G.R.No.160123,June17,2015CENTROPROJECT
MANPOWER SERVICES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.
AGUINALDO NALUIS AND THE COURT OF APPEALS,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 186375, June 17, 2015 ELENA ALCEDO,

Petitioner, v. SPS. JESUS SAGUDANG AND MARLENE
PADUASAGUDANG,Respondents.

G.R. No. 182133, June 23, 2015 UNITED

OVERSEAS BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
Petitioner,v. THEBOARDOF COMMISSIONERSHLURB,
J.O.S. MANAGING BUILDERS, INC., AND EDUPLAN
PHILS.,INC.,Respondents.

A.M. No. 12807CA, June 16, 2015 RE: LETTER

OF COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE VICENTE S.E. VELOSO
FOR ENTITLEMENT TO LONGEVITY PAY FOR HIS
SERVICES AS COMMISSION MEMBER III OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION A.M. No.
1295SCRE:COMPUTATIONOFLONGEVITYPAYOF
COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE ANGELITA A. GACUTAN
A.M. No. 130207SC RE: REQUEST OF COURT OF
APPEALS JUSTICE REMEDIOS A. SALAZARFERNANDO
THAT HER SERVICES AS MTC JUDGE AND AS COMELEC
COMMISSIONER BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF HER
JUDICIAL SERVICE AND INCLUDED IN THE
COMPUTATION/ADJUSTMENTOFHERLONGEVITYPAY

G.R. No. 202789, June 22, 2015 COMMISSIONER

OFINTERNALREVENUE,Petitioner,v.PUREGOLDDUTY
FREE,INC.,Respondent.

A.M. No. P092705, June 16, 2015 EDMAR D.

GARCISO, Complainant, v. ARVIN A. OCA, PROCESS
SERVER,MUNICIPALTRIALCOURTINCITIES,BRANCH
1, CEBU CITY, Respondent. A.M. No. P092737
 JUDGE ENRIQUETA L. BELARMINO, Complainant, v.
ARVIN A. OCA, PROCESS SERVER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTINCITIES,BRANCH1,CEBUCITY,Respondent.

G.R.No.212246,June22,2015OFELIAGAMILLA,
Petitioner, v. BURGUNDY REALTY CORPORATION,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 213383, June 22, 2015 PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, v. ERNIE INCIONG Y
ORENSE,AccusedAppellant.

Copyright19982017ChanRoblesPublishingCompany |Disclaimer|EmailRestrictions
ChanRoblesVirtualLawLibrary|chanrobles.com RED