LINA vs. PURISIMA (GR No. L-39380)
W/N the orders of dismissal are valid
PROMULGATED: April 14, 1978
PONENTE: Barredo
PETITIONER: Lualhati L. Lina
RESPONDENT: Hon. Amante Purisima, presiding
judge of CFI Manila; Philippine Veterans Bank,
Esteban Cabanos
RELATED PROVISION/S:
Art. VIII. Sec. 5 (in relation to the power of the
Supreme Court to disregard its own rules)
FACTS:
1. Lina is a bookkeeper at the Philippine Veterans
Bank. She is dismissed from work for being
notoriously undesirable pursuant to LOI 14 and
19-A.
2. She files a petition for mandamus (to restore her to
position in bank) with the CFI Manila, but her
petition is dismissed.
3. Reason for dismissal: General Order No. 3 (1972)
removes the issue of the validity or legality of
presidential decrees, orders, or acts from the
jurisdiction of the judiciary. Because Linas
dismissal was pursuant to an LOI, the validity or
legality of said act is beyond the power of the court
to review.
KIND OF CASE/PETITION: Petition to for certiorari
and mandamus to annul the orders of dismissal issued
by respondent judge and to command the said
respondent to decide the case on the merits
ISSUES:
1.
2. W/N the SC can decide on the merits of the case
(note: not an express issue in the case, but might
be the relevant issue for recits)
HELD/RATIO:
1. NO
- The SC has always deemed General Order No. 3
and its amendments to be inoperative. It is for the
Court to decide whether or not they may take
cognizance of any case involving the validity of
executive acts.
2. YES
- Ordinarily, the Court would direct the petitioners
case to be tried and decided by respondent judge
on the merits.
- But all the facts are available for the Court itself to
decide on the merits.
- When a case is elevated to the Court for the
correction of a procedural error and it has been
found that there was indeed a mistake, and all the
facts are available for the Court to decide on the
merits, in the interests of justice, the Court may at
its option dispense with the usual procedure and
resolve the issue on its own. Otherwise, expenses
would only increase and justice would be uselessly
delayed.
RULING:
During the pendency of the case, respondents
reinstated petitioner and paid her backwages plus
costs of the suit (but Lina still didnt report for work).
Respondent judges order set aside and Lina ordered
to go back to work on pain of losing her job.