J.

CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

COMMON PROVISIONS

Section 6
1. Aruelo vs CA 227 SCRA 311

Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:chanrobles virtual law
library
1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo
warranto, and habeas corpus.
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the
Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts
in:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) All cases in which the constitutionality or validity of any treaty, international or
executive agreement, law, presidential decree, proclamation, order, instruction,
ordinance, or regulation is in question.
(b) All cases involving the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, or toll, or any penalty
imposed in relation thereto.
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.
(d) All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
(e) All cases in which only an error or question of law is involved.
(3) Assign temporarily judges of lower courts to other stations as public interest may
require. Such temporary assignment shall not exceed six months without the consent of
the judge concerned.
(4) Order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the
integrated bar, and legal assistance to the under- privileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
(6) Appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.

FACTS:
(1) Aruelo and Gatchalian were rival candidates in the May 11, 1992 elections for the
office of the Vice- Mayor of the Municipality of Balagtas, Province of Bulacan.
Gatchalian won over Aruelo by a margin of four votes, such that on May 13, 1992, the
Municipal Board of Canvassers proclaimed him as the duly elected Vice-Mayor of
Balagtas, Bulacan.
(2) On May 22, 1992, Aruelo filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a
petition docketed as SPC No. 92-130, seeking to annul Gatchalian's proclamation on
the ground of "fraudulent alteration and tampering" of votes in the tally sheets and the
election returns.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by declaring that
Gatchalian’s answer with counter- protest and counterclaim was timely filed

HELD:
We find no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

RATIO:
An election protest does not merely concern the personal interests of rival candidates
for an office. Over and above the desire of the candidates to win, is the deep public
interest to determine the true choice of the people. For this reason, it is a well-
established principle that laws governing election protests must be

liberally construed to the end that the popular will, ex pressed in the election of public
officers, will not, by purely technical reasons, be defeated (Unda v. Commission on
Elections, 190 SCRA 827[1990]; De Leon v. Guadiz , J r., 104 SCRA591 [1981];
Macasundig v. Macalangan, 13 SCRA 577[1965]; Corocoro v. Bascara,9 SCRA 519
[1963]).

2. Mamerto Sevilla vs COMELEC

Section 7
3. Cua vs COMELEC 156 SCRA 582

4. Acena vs CSC 193 SCRA 623

Acena v Civil Service Commission 193 SCRA 623 (1991)

FACTS:
This is a petition for certiorari to annul the resolution of the Civil Service Commission
which set aside the order of the Merit Systems Protection Board declaring the herein
petitioner as the legitimate Administrative Officer of Rizal Technological Colleges.
Acena was assigned as Admin. Officer by then President of Rizal Technological
Colleges and was subsequently promoted as Associate Professor on temporary status
pending his compliance to obtain a Master’s Degree while assuming the position of
Acting Admin Officer at the same time. The Board of Trustees designated Ricardo
Salvador as Acting Admin Officer and pursuant to the same, the new College President
Dr. Estolas revoked the designation of the petitioner as acting Admin Officer. Petitioner
sent a letter to the CSC stating his desire to keep his appointment as Admin Officer
instead of Associate Professor. Thus the latter’s appointment was withdrawn. He also
filed a complaint for injunction of damages to Dr. Estolas assailing the validity of his
dismissal from his position as violation of security of tenure. He filed another complaint
for illegal termination against Dr. Estolas before the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB). The CSC opined that Acena is still the Admin Officer since his appointment as
Asso. Prof. was withdrawn. Dr. Estolas filed petition for review to the Office of the
President. The Presidential Staff Director referred the complaint back to the CSC. In the
dispositive portion of its resolution, the CSC finds the action of Dr. Estolas valid and set
aside the previous opinion made by the CSC and the order of the MSPB. The petitioner
files a petition for certiorari against the CSC decision on jurisdictional issue.

ISSUE: WON the CSC acted in grave abuse of discretion.

RULING: The court held that respondent Estolas filed a petition for review beyond the
prescriptive period of 15 days where the decision of the MSPB can be made appealable
with the CSC. Beyond this reglementary period, the decision of the MSPB renders to be
final and executory. The petition was also filed at the wrong forum (to the office of the
Pres.) The court finds the CSC to have an excess of jurisdiction of entertaining the
petition and made a reversible error of setting aside the MSPB order which has long
become final and executory. The court granted the petition of the petitioner while setting
aside the decision of the CSC.
5. Vital-Gonzon vs CA 212 SCRA 235
Issue:

whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter of
damages in a special civil action of mandamus.

Held:

Yes. CA has jurisdiction to award damages in mandamus petitions. Sec. 3 of Rule 65 of

the Rules of Court explicitly authorized the rendition of judgment in a mandamus action
“commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act
required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages
sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant.” The
provision makes plain that the damages are an incident, or the result of, the defendant’s
wrongful act in failing and refusing to do the act required to be done. It is noteworthy
that the Rules of 1940 had an identical counterpart provision. The Solicitor General’s
theory that the rule in question is a mere procedural one allowing joinder of an action of
mandamus and another for damages, is untenable, for it implies that a claim for
damages arising from the omission or failure to do an act subject of a mandamus suit
may be litigated separately from the latter, the matter of damages not being inextricably
linked to the cause of action for mandamus, which is certainly not the case.

Issue:
whether or not the SolGen is authorized to represent Vital-Gozon in this case

Held:
Yes. The doctrine laid down in the Urbano and Co cases already adverted to,
is quite clear to the effect that the Office of the Solicitor General is not authorized to
represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case. This observation should apply
as well to a public official who is haled to court on a civil suit for damages arising from a
felony allegedly committed by him (Article 100, Revised Penal Code). Any pecuniary
liability he may be held to account for on the occasion of such civil suit is for his own
account. The State is not liable for the same. A fortiori, the Office of the Solicitor
General likewise has no authority to represent him in such a civil suit for damages.
Here, Dr. Vital-Gozon is not charged with a crime, or civilly prosecuted for damages
arising from a crime, there is no legal obstacle to her being represented by the Office of
the Solicitor General.

6. FILIPINAS ENGINEERING AND MACHINE SHOP vs. HON. JAIME N. FERRER

G.R. No. L-31455 February 28, 1985
COMELEC awarded the contract to Acme for the manufacture and supply of voting
booths. However, the losing bidder, petitioner in the instant case, Filipinas Engineering
filed an Injunction suit against COMELEC and Acme. The lower court denied the writ
prayed for.
Thereafter, ACME filed a motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the lower court has no
jurisdiction over the case which the court granted. Filipinas' motion for reconsideration
was denied for lack of merit. Hence, this appeal for certiorari.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the lower court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of a suit involving
an order of the COMELEC dealing with an award of contract arising from its invitation to
bid; and
2. Whether or not Filipinas, the losing bidder, has a cause of action under the premises
against the COMELEC and Acme, the winning bidder, to enjoin them from complying
with their contract.
RULING:

It has been consistently held that it is the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to
review on certiorari; final decisions, orders or rulings of the COMELEC relative to the
conduct of elections and enforcement of election laws.

The COMELEC resolution awarding the contract in favor of Acme was not issued
pursuant to its quasi-judicial functions but merely as an incident of its inherent
administrative functions over the conduct of elections, and hence, the said resolution
may not be deemed as a "final order" reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court.
Being non-judicial in character, no contempt may be imposed by the COMELEC from
said order, and no direct and exclusive appeal by certiorari to this Tribunal lie from such
order. Any question arising from said order may be well taken in an ordinary civil action
before the trial courts.

What is contemplated by the term "final orders, rulings and decisions" of the COMELEC
reviewable by certiorari by the Supreme Court as provided by law are those rendered in
actions or proceedings before the COMELEC and taken cognizance of by the said body
in the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers.

7. Mateo vs Ca 247 SCRA 284

Issue:

whether or not the Regional Trial Court of Rizal has jurisdiction over a case
involving dismissal of an employee of Morong Water District, a quasi-public corporation

Held:

No. MOWAD is a quasi-public corporation created pursuant to Presidential

Decree (P.D.) No. 198, known as the provincial Water Utilities Act of 1973, as amended.
Employees of government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter fall
under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

Indeed, the hiring and firing of employees of government-own and controlled

corporations are governed by the provisions of the Civil Service Law and Rules and
Regulations.

Presidential Decree No. 807, Executive Order No. 292, and Rule II section 1 of
Memorandum Circular No. 44 series of 1990 of the Civil Service Commission spell out
the initial remedy of private respondent against illegal dismissal. They categorically
provide that the party aggrieved by a decision, ruling, order, or action of an agency of
the government involving termination of services may appeal to the Commission within
fifteen (15) days. Thereafter, private respondent could go on certiorari to the Supreme
Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if he still feels aggrieved by the ruling of the
Civil Service Commission.

8. Supreme Court Revised Administrative Circular No. 1-95

*printed