Dario vs Mison (1988)
Petitioner: CESAR Z. DARIO
Respondent: HON. SALVADOR M. MISON, HON. VICENTE JAYME and
HON. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., in their respective capacities as
Commissioner of Customs, Secretary of Finance, and Executive Secretary
Ponencia: SARMIENTO, J.
DOCTRINE: The questions raised by Commissioner Mison are proper
for certiorari- that is if the jurisdictional questions are questions having to do
with an indifferent disregard of the law, arbitrariness and caprice, or omission
to weigh pertinent considerations, a decision arrived at without rational
deliberation, as distinguished from questions that require digging into the
merits and unearthing errors of judgment which is the office, on the other
hand, of review under Rule 45 of the said Rules.
FACTS: This is a consolidation of 7 petitions.
1.) President Corazon Aquino promulgated a series of executive orders
and directives regarding the reorganization of the government and
the grounds for the separation/replacement of personnel.
2.) Pursuant to such orders, the then Commissioner of Customs
Salvador Mison issued a Memorandum, providing that:
a.) all officers and employees of the Department of Finance, or the
Bureau of Customs shall continue to perform their respective
duties and responsibilities in a hold-over capacity;
b.) those incumbents whose positions are not carried in the new
reorganization pattern, or who are not re- appointed, shall be
deemed separated from the service; and
c.) recipients of such notice would be terminated from rendering
their services
3.) A total of 394 officials and employees of the Bureau of Customs were
given individual notices of separation. A number supposedly sought
reinstatement with the Reorganization Appeals Board while others
went to the Civil Service Commission.
4.) The Civil Service Commission promulgated its ruling ordering the
reinstatement and payment of backwages of the 279 employees.
5.) Commissioner Mison instituted certiorari proceedings with
Supreme Court in contesting CSCs judgment.
ISSUES: W/N Misons contention via the petition for certiorari is proper
RULING + RATIO: Yes. The petition for certiorari is proper.
There is no question that the administration may validly carry out a government reorganization
by mandate not only of the Provisional Constitution, but also of the various Executive Orders.
The Court disregards the questions raised as to procedure, failure to exhaust administrative
remedies, the standing of certain parties to sue and other technical objections, for two reasons:
a.) because of the demands of public interest, including the need for stability in the public
service, and b.) because of the serious implications of these cases on the administration of the
Philippine civil service and the rights of public servants.
The questions raised by Commissioner Mison are proper for certiorari- that is
if the jurisdictional questions are questions having to do with an indifferent
disregard of the law, arbitrariness and caprice, or omission to weigh pertinent
considerations, a decision arrived at without rational deliberation, as
distinguished from questions that require digging into the merits and
unearthing errors of judgment which is the office, on the other hand, of
review under Rule 45 of the said Rules.
The act of the Civil Service Commission of reinstating hundreds of Customs
employees has implications not only on the entire reorganization process, but
on the Philippine bureaucracy in general. These implications are of such a
magnitude that it cannot be said that assuming that the Civil Service
Commission erred the Commission committed a plain error of judgment
that cannot be corrected by the extraordinary remedy of certiorari or any
special civil action.
The SC reaffirmed the teaching of the previous case of Aratuc as regards
recourse to this Court with respect to rulings of the Civil Service Commission
which is that judgments of the Commission may be brought to the
Supreme Court through certiorari alone, under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
While Republic Act No. 6656 states that judgments of the Commission are
final and executory and hence, unappealable, under Rule
65, certiorari precisely lies in the absence of an appeal. Accordingly, the
Court accepts Commissioner Misons petition which clearly charges the Civil
Service Commission with grave abuse of discretion, a proper subject
of certiorari, although it may not have so stated in explicit terms.
DISPOSITION: Wherefore, the petition is granted.
the