Hidalgo Vs Republic of The Philippines, GR No. 179793, July 5, 2010 Facts: Ruling
Hidalgo Vs Republic of The Philippines, GR No. 179793, July 5, 2010 Facts: Ruling
Hidalgo Vs Republic of The Philippines, GR No. 179793, July 5, 2010 Facts: Ruling
Facts:
Section 2 (1), Article IX B of the 1987 Constitution defines the scope of the
AFPCES is a unit/facility of the Armed Forces of the Philippines intended to civil service, as follows:
benefit the veterans, their widows and orphans, and the members of the AFP
and their dependents. Petitioners, numbering 65 in all, were hired as regular "Sec. 2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
employees of AFPCES. instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-
owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
Several of them had worked with AFPCES for a number of years, ranging
from 4 to 31 years. Since the start of their employment, petitioners were Presidential Decree (PD) No. 807 or the Civil Service Decree of the
enrolled in the Social Security System (SSS), with respondent AFPCES Philippines declares that the Civil Service Commission shall be the central
paying its corresponding employer’s share in their monthly SSS contribution. personnel agency to set standards and to enforce the laws governing the
discipline of civil servants. Subsequently, Executive Order (EO) No. 180
defined government employees as all employees of all branches,
Between 1999 and 2001, however, AFPCES advised petitioners to undergo subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including
an indefinite leave of absence without pay, allegedly upon a conditional government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. It
promise that they would be allowed to return to work as soon as AFPCES’ provided that the Civil Service and labor laws shall be followed in the
tax subsidy is released and upon resumption of its store operations. 9 resolution of complaints, grievances and cases involving government
employees.
When AFPCES failed to recall petitioners to their work as allegedly promised,
petitioners filed a complaint for illegal (constructive) dismissal with damages Accordingly, AFPCES is an agency under the direct control and supervision
against AFPCES before the NLRC. Labor Arbiter rendered a decision in of the AFP as it was established to take charge of the operations and
favor of petitioners. AFPCES filed an appeal before. Meanwhile, petitioners management of all commissary facilities in military establishments all over
sought the immediate execution of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. the country. By clear implication of law, all AFPCES personnel should
therefore be classified as government employees and any appointment,
AFPCES filed a petition before the appellate court to enjoin the NLRC from promotion, discipline and termination of its civilian staff should be governed
dismissing the appeal and granting execution of the Labor Arbiter’s decision. by appropriate civil service laws and procedures.
This was however denied. Subsequently, the NLRC dismissed AFPCES’
appeal. Such fact cannot be negated by the failure of respondents to follow
appropriate civil service rules in the hiring, appointment, discipline and
Following NLRC’s dismissal, AFPCES filed with the CA a motion to lift the dismissal of petitioners. Neither can it be denied by the fact that respondents
writ of garnishment and to stay the execution of the Labor Arbiter’s monetary chose to enroll petitioners in the SSS instead of the GSIS. Such
award. This was granted. Undaunted, petitioners were able to secure an alias considerations cannot be used against the CSC to deprive it of its jurisdiction.
writ of execution after due hearing before the Labor Arbiter. The issue was
again brought before the Court of Appeals.CA ruled in favour of AFPCES. Note: However, given petitioners’ peculiar situation, the Court is constrained
It explained that since AFPCES is a governmental agency that has no not to deny the petition entirely, but instead to refer it to the CSC pro hac
personality separate and distinct from the AFP, petitioners are considered vice. The Court notes that this case has been pending for nearly a decade,
civil service employees, and that complaints for illegal dismissal should but deciding it on the merits at this juncture, while ideal and more
therefore be lodged not with the Labor Arbiter but with the CSC. expeditious, is not possible. The records of the case fail to adequately spell
out the validity of the complaint for illegal dismissal as well as the actual
Issue: amount of the claim. In fact, the records even fail to disclose the amount of
salary received by petitioners while they were engaged to work in AFPCES’
Which quasi-judicial agency has jurisdiction to hear and decide complaints
facilities. But rather than directing petitioners to re-file and relitigate their
for illegal dismissal against an adjunct government agency engaged in claim before the CSC – a step which will only duplicate much of the
proprietary function? proceedings already accomplished – the Court deems it best, pro hac vice,
to order the NLRC to forward the entire records of the case directly to the Whether or not POEA has jurisdiction over the case.
CSC which is directed to take cognizance of the case.
Ruling:
Manalo vs Roldan-Confesor, 215 SCRA 808
Yes.
Facts:
The alleged procedural lapse by respondent POEA was raised by petitioners
In response to a newspaper advertisement looking for a couple to work as
only before the Court, notwithstanding that such ground was already existing
driver and tutor cum baby sitter, petitioners Vicente and Gloria Manalo went when they appealed to the Secretary of Labor. Ironically, petitioners now
to Career Planners Specialists International, Inc. (CPSI), a licensed service question the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Labor over the appeal which they
contracting firm owned by private respondents, the spouses Victor and themselves elevated to that office. Clearly, it would be the height of
Elnora Fernandez. According to petitioners, a placement fee of P40,000.00 unfairness and inequity petitioners were allowed to backtrack after getting an
was imposed as a precondition for the processing of their papers. They paid unfavorable verdict from public respondents whose authority they themselves
only P30,000.00 in cash and executed a promissory note for the balance. involved.
Then they were allowed by respondent Elnora Fernandez to sign their
contract papers but did not issue a receipt for the placement fee despite The 1985 POEA Rules and Regulations is divided into eight (8) Books. Book
demand. VI, cited by petitioners, is entitled "Adjudication Rules". The procedure
outlined therein relates to the original and exclusive jurisdiction exercised by
Contrary to the representation of her recruiter, Gloria was actually hired as a POEA through its Adjudication Department "to hear and decide all cases
domestic help and not as a tutor, so that after working for only twenty-five involving employer-employee relations arising out of or by virtue of a law or
(25) days in Jeddah, she returned to Manila. Soon after, Vicente also contact involving Filipino workers for overseas employment." On the other
resigned from his work and followed her home. He could not stand the hand, Book II entitled "Licensing and Regulations", notably Rule VI cited by
unbearable working conditions of his employment. private respondents, refers particularly to the procedure for suspension,
cancellation and revocation of Authority or License through the POEA
Petitioners sued private respondents before the Philippines Overseas Licensing and Regulation Office (LRO).
Employment Administration (POEA) charging them with illegal
exaction, 1 false adverstisement, 2 and violation of other pertinents laws, rules The controversy in the present case centers on the liability of private
and regulations. respondents for illegal exaction, false advertisement and violation of pertinent
laws and rules on recruitment of overseas workers and the resulting
Mainly, on the basis of the transcripts of petitioners' testimonies in the imposition of penalty of suspension of the Authority of respondent CPSI.
clarificatory questioning, the POEA issued its Order giving more weight and Quite plainly, the concern here is not employer-employee relations, the
credence to petitioners' version. Private respondents filed a motion for procedure of which is outlined in Book VI; rather, with the suspension or
reconsideration wherein POEA issued a resolution setting arise its earlier revocation of Authority embodied in Book II.
order. Petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Labor who sustained the
reconsideration of POEA. In her Order, then Undersecretary Ma. Nieves Evidently, no jurisdictional error was accordingly committed because in cases
Roldan-Confesor denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. affecting suspension, revocation or cancellation of Authority, the POEA has
authority under Sec. 18, Rule VI, Book II, to resolve motions for
In the present recourse, petitioners claim that public respondent POEA reconsideration which may thereafter be appealed to the Secretary of Labor.
committed a fatal jurisdictional error when it resolved private respondents' Section 18, provides: "A motion for reconsideration of an order of suspension
motion for reconsideration in violation of Rule V, Book VI of the 1985 POEA (issued by POEA) or an appeal to the Minister (now Secretary of Labor) from
Rules and Regulations directing the transmittal of motions for reconsideration an order cancelling a license or authority may be entertained only when filed
to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) for determination. with the LRO within ten (10) working days from the service of the order or
decision" (parenthesis supplied).
Issue:
fact that these acts may affect private rights do not constitute an exercise
of judicial powers."
Garcia vs Drilon, GR No. 179267, June 25, 2013
The Punong Barangay must determine reasonable ground to believe that
Facts: an imminent danger of violence against the woman and her children
exists or is about to recur that would necessitate the issuance of a BPO.
On March 23, 2006, Rosalie Jaype-Garcia (private respondent) filed, for The preliminary investigation conducted by the prosecutor is, concededly,
herself and in behalf of her minor children, a verified petition before the an executive, not a judicial, function. The same holds true with the
RTC of Bacolod City for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order issuance of a BPO.
(TPO) against her husband, Jesus C. Garcia (petitioner), pursuant to R.A.
9262. She claimed to be a victim of physical abuse; emotional, On the issue raised by petitioner that since barangay officials and other
psychological, and economic violence as a result of marital infidelity on law enforcement agencies are required to extend assistance to victims of
the part of petitioner, with threats of deprivation of custody of her children violence and abuse, it would be very unlikely that they would remain
and of financial support. objective and impartial, and that the chances of acquittal are nil, suffice it
to say that assistance by barangay officials and other law enforcement
This was granted by the RTC. During the pendency of the case, petitioner agencies is consistent with their duty to enforce the law and to maintain
filed before the Court of Appeals (CA) a petition challenging the peace and order.
constitutionality of R.A. 9262. This was dismissed. His motion for
reconsideration of having been denied, petitioner comes now to the Court NASECO Guards Association vs National Service Corporation, GR No.
alleging that R.A. No. 9262 is invalid and unconstitutional because, 165442, August 25, 2010
among others, it allows undue delegation of judicial power to the
barangay officials. Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
The respondent’s right to due process in this case has not been denied. The
order in the first CA decision to recompute and reevaluate was satisfied when
the DOLE Secretary reexamined their initial findings and adjusted the
awarded benefits. A reevaluation, contrary to what the respondent claims, is
a process by which a person or office (in this case the DOLE secretary)
revisits its own initial pronouncement and makes another assessment of its
findings. A reevaluation does not necessitate the introduction of new
materials for review nor does it require a full hearing for new arguments.