7/25/2019 Article 9 Cases

1/3

National Housing Corp. v. Juco, 134 SCRA 172 (198!

F: Juco was an employee of the NHA. He filed a complaint for illegal dismissal w/ MOL !ut his case was dismissed!y the la!or ar!iter on the ground that the NHA is a go"t#owned corp. and $urisdiction o"er its employees is "ested inthe %&%. On appeal' the NL(% re"ersed the decision and remanded the case to the la!or ar!iter for furtherproceedings. NHA in turn appealed to the &%

)&&*: Are employees of the National Housing %orporation' a +O%% without original charter' co"ered !y the La!or%ode or !y laws and regulations go"erning the ci"il ser"ice,

HL-: &ec. ' Art ))#0 of the %onstitution specifically pro"ides: 12he %i"il &er"ice em!races e"ery !ranch' agency'su!di"ision and instrumentality of the +o"ernment' including e"ery go"ernment owned and controlled corporation.2he inclusion of +O%% within the em!race of the ci"il ser"3ice shows a deli!erate effort at the framers to plug anearlier loophole which allowed +O%% to a"oid the full conse4uences of the ci"il ser"ice system. All offices and firmsof the go"ernment are co"ered.2his consti pro"ision has !een implemented !y statute 5- 678 is une4ui"ocal that personnel of +O%% !elong to theci"il ser"ice and su!$ect to ci"il ser"ice re4uirements.1"ery1 means each one of a group' without e9ception. 2his case refers to a +O%%. )t does not co"er cases in"ol"ingpri"ate firms taen o"er !y the go"ernment in foreclosure or similar proceedings.

999For purposes of co"erage in the %i"il &er"ice' employees of go"t# owned or controlled corps. whether created !y

special law or formed as su!sidiaries are co"ered !y the %i"il &er"ice Law' not the La!or %ode' and the fact that p"t.corps. owned or controlled !y the go"t may !e created !y special charter does not mean that such corps. not created!y special law are not co"ered !y the %i"il &er"ice.999

2he infirmity of the resp;s position lies in its permitting the circum"ention or emasculation of &ec. ' Art. ))#0 ?@ of the %onsti. )t would !e possi!le for a regular ministry of go"t to create a host of su!sidiary corps.

under the %orp. %ode funded !y a willing legislature. A go"t#owned corp. could create se"eral su!sidiary corps.

2hese su!sidiary corps. would en$oy the !est of two worlds. 2heir officials and employees would !e pri"ileged

indi"iduals' free from the strict accounta!ility re4uired !y the %i"il &er"ice -ec. and the regulations of the %OA. 2heir

incomes would not !e su!$ect to the competiti"e restraint in the open maret nor to the terms and conditions of ci"il

ser"ice employment. %oncei"a!ly' all go"t#owned or controlled corps. could !e created' no longer !y special charters'

!ut through incorp. under the general law. 2he %onstitutional amendment including such corps. in the em!race of the

ci"il ser"ice would cease to ha"e application. %ertainly' such a situation cannot !e allowed

"ui#po v. $ano%&a'an, 14 SCRA 137 )) $ano%&a'an Has Juris%iction ov*r all +ov*rn#*nt -n*% ir#s

R*gar%l*ss o/ Ho- rgani0*%.

F: F. uimpo filed a complaint w/ the 2anod!ayan >20? charging +. -imaano and -. (emo' manager and analyst of

5etrophil' w/ "iol. of (A B7C for their refusal to pay uimpo;s fees as sur"eyor. 2he 20 dismissed the complaint'

howe"er' on the ground that his $urisdiction e9tended only to go"t owned corps. organiDed under a special law.

5etrophil is a corp. organiDed under the +en. %orp. %odeE it was ac4uired !y the go"t to carry out its oil and gasoline

programs. uimpo filed a petition for certiorari' 4uestioning the decision of the 20. 2he new 20 confessed $udgment.

)&&*: ON 52(O5H)L is a go"ernment owned or controlled corpo3ration whose employees fall within the

$urisdictional pur"iew of the 2anod!ayan for purposes of the Anti#graft and %orrupt 5rac3tices Act,

HL-: G&. *phold the 2anod!ayan $urisdiction. hile it may !e that 52(O5H)L was not originally 1created1 as a+O%%' 52(O5H)L !ecame a su!sidiary of 5NO% and thus shed#off its pri"ate status. )t is now funded and owned

!y the go"ernment as in fact' it was ac4uired to perform functions related to go"ernmental programs and policies on

oil. )t was ac4uired not temporarily !ut as a permanent ad$unct to perform essential go"ernment related functions.

7/25/2019 Article 9 Cases

2/3

DELOS SANTOS vs. MALLARE

As has !een seen' three specified classes of positions policy#determining' primarily confidential and highly technical

are e9cluded from the merit system and dismissal at pleasure of officers and employees appointed therein is allowed !y the

%onstitution. 2hese positions in"ol"ed the highest degree of confidence' or are closely !ound out with and dependent on

other positions to which they are su!ordinate' or are temporary in nature. )t may truly !e said that the good of the ser"ice

itself demands that appointments coming under this category determina!le at the will of the officer that maes them.

2he office of city engineer is neither primarily confidential' policy#determining' nor highly technical.

"ery appointment implies confidence' !ut much more than ordinary confidence is reposed in the occupant of a position that

is primarily confidential. 2he latter phrase denotes not only confidence in the aptitude of the appointee for the duties of the

office !ut primarily close intimacy which insures freedom of intercourse without em!arrassment or freedom from misgi"ings

of !etrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state. Nor is the position of city engineer policy#determining. A city

engineer does not formulate a method of action for the go"ernment or any its su!di"isions. His $o! is to e9ecute policy' not to

mae it. ith specific reference to the %ity ngineer of 0aguio' his powers and duties are carefully laid down for him !e

section =II8 of the (e"ised Administrati"e %ode and are essentially ministerial in character. Finally' the position of city

engineer is technical !ut not highly so. A city engineer is not re4uired nor is he supposed to possess a technical sill or

training in the supreme or superior degree' which is the sense in which 1highly technical1 is' we !elie"e' employed in the

%onstitution. 2here are hundreds of technical men in the classified ci"il ser"ice whose technical competence is not lower

than that of a city engineer. As a matter of fact' the duties of a city engineer are eminently administrati"e in character and

could "ery well !e discharged !y non#technical men possessing e9ecuti"e a!ility.

&ection 7 of Article ))) of the %onstitution re4uires that 1All cases in"ol"ing the constitutionality of a treaty

MATURAN VS. MAGLANA

113 SCRA 268

FACTS:

1. Petitioner Tereso Maturan was appointed as patrolman of San Francisco, Southern Leyte.2. He was promoted to the rank of police sereant .!. The appointments of petitioner were pro"isional.#. His pro"ision appointments were renewed.$. %espondent Mayor Santiao Malana suspended petitioner from office &ecause of two pendin criminal case aainst him.

'. %espondent (ice)Mayor, then the actin Mayor, instructed petitioner to tender his resination pursuant to Letter of*nstruction +o. 1# of the President of the Philippines. Petitioner tendered his letter of resination and was appro"ed three months later.

-. Petitioner souht the reconsideration of the appro"al of his resination for &ein null and "oid on the round that L*+o. 1# does not apply to him./. *n the meantime, the two criminal cases were dismissed.10. Hon. uan Ponce nrile then 3ctin 4hairman of the +ational Police 4ommission informed petitioner of the dismissal ofthe criminal cases, and the pre"enti"e suspension has &een lifted, and petitioner was directed to report for duty to his4hief of Police.11. Petitioner reported for duty &ut 4hief of Police Francisco 5uterte refused to accept the former in the police force.12. %espondent Mayor sent a letter to the 4hairman of the +ational Police 4ommission re6uestin ad"ice as to whether theresination tendered &y petitioner was "alid.1!. The 5eputy 7ecuti"e 4ommissioner stated that since petitioner resined from office, the liftin of his suspension is noloner feasi&le, the same ha"in &een rendered moot and academic.1#. Petitioner filed a Petition for Mandamus with claim for &acksalaries, tra"ellin e7penses and damaes.1$. He alleed that the refusal of respondent8s Mayor and 4hief of Police to reinstate him is a "iolation of Par. ofPresidential 5ecree +o. 12)3 which pro"ides9: Mem&ers of the police force who ha"e &een pre"enti"ely suspended shall,upon e7amination &e entitled to immediate reinstatement and payment of the entire salary they failed to recei"e durinthe period of suspension.:1'. %espondent court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

1. The court a 6uo areed with the opinion of the +ational Police 4ommission that resination su&mitted &y the policeforce in compliance with the pro"isions of L* +o. 1# are "alid.1-. Lastly, the trial court ruled that since all petitioner8s appointment were pro"isional, he can &e remo"ed at any time &ythe appointin power.

ISSUE:

Should petitioner &e reinstated;

7/25/2019 Article 9 Cases

3/3

HELD:

Petitioner did not dispute that at the time he was appointed mem&er of the Police Force of San Francisco, Southern Leyte,he had neither 6ualified in an appropriate e7amination for the position of policeman nor was he possessed with any ci"ilser"ice elii&ility for any position in the o"ernment. Such lack of ci"il ser"ice elii&ility makes his appointment temporaryand without a definite term and is dependent entirely upon the pleasure of the appointin power.

Th fact that petitioner su&se6uently o&tained a testimonial elii&ility is of no moment. 3t the time he recei"ed hisappointment, petitioner had no elii&ility. 3s such what is re6uired is a new appointment, not merely reinstatement.