Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 166471 2011-03-22	TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE v. LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT CARPIO, J.
In Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc.,[8] the Court held that, "What one cannot do directly, he cannot do indirectly."[9] In Akbayan Citizens Action Party v. Aquino,[10] quoting Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc.,[11] the Court held that, "This Court has long and consistently adhered to the legal maxim that those that cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly."[12] In Central Bank Employees Association, Inc. v. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,[13] the Court held that, "No one is allowed to do indirectly what he is prohibited to do directly."[14]
	GR No. 165641 2010-08-25	ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO v. CORNELIO C. GISON BRION, J.
The present petition is not the first instance that the petitioner LMWD, through Engr. Ranulfo C. Feliciano, has raised for determination by this Court the corporate classification of local water districts.[18] LMWD posed this exact same question in Feliciano v. Commission on Audit (COA).[19] In ruling that local water districts, such as the LMWD, are GOCCs with special charter, the Court even pointed to settled jurisprudence[20] culminating in Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission[21] and recently reiterated in De Jesus v. COA. [22]
	GR No. 174929 2008-06-27	ENGR. RANULFO C. FELICIANO v. NESTOR P. VILLASIN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
With the promulgation on September 13, 1991 of the above-mentioned Supreme Court decision,[17] the issuance on October 1, 1993 of the aforestated CSC Memorandum Circular, and the adoption on January 22, 2001 of CSC Resolution No. 01-2018 denying Feliciano's motion for reconsideration, Feliciano is under legal obligation to comply by submitting his appointment to the Commission for attestation/approval. This, he did not do. He instead stubbornly maintained his personal stand that water districts are private corporations, not government-owned or controlled corporations with original charter. For all legal intents and purposes, effective upon his receipt on February 6, 2001 of CSC Resolution No. 01-0218 denying his motion for reconsideration, Feliciano is a mere usurper or intruder who has no right or title whatsoever to the position/office of General Manager. His further occupancy of the position after said date holds him criminally liable for usurpation of authority.
	GR NO. 168780 2007-11-23	BACOLOD CITY WATER DISTRICT v. JUANITO H. BAYONA CARPIO, J.
As a preliminary note, we emphasize that because of CA-G.R. SP No. 45369, there is already a final decision on the determination of the compulsory retirement age of BACIWA employees and on the nullity of the CBA provision declaring 60 years as the compulsory retirement age for BACIWA employees. Moreover, there are a number of cases[16] promulgated before Davao City Water District v. Civil Service Commission,[17] the decision relied upon by BACIWA, that specifically ruled that local water districts are quasi-public corporations whose employees belong to the Civil Service and that the dismissal of employees of local water districts is governed by the Civil Service Law and regulations. Thus, there is no need to decide these matters all over again.
	GR NO. 156503 2006-06-22	CAMILO P. CABILI v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PUNO, J.
As a start, we affirm the CSC's jurisdiction in promulgating policies on compensation matters of water district personnel. We held in De Jesus v. CSC,[14] viz: The present case involves the acts of LWUA officials who are concurrently designated as members of the boards of directors of water districts. This Court has consistently ruled that water districts are government-owned and controlled corporations with original charters, since they have been created pursuant to PD 198. Hence, they are under the jurisdiction of the CSC.[15]
	GR NO. 142347 2005-08-25	DULCE M. ABANILLA v. COA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
On December 3, 1998, respondent COA rendered its Decision No. 98-465[4] denying petitioner's appeal. In sustaining the disallowance in the amount of P12,221,120.86, respondent COA cited this Court's ruling in Davao City Water District vs. Civil Service Commission[5] that "a water district is a corporation created pursuant to a special law - P.D. No. 198, as amended, and as such, its officers and employees are covered by the Civil Service Law."
	GR No. 149154 2003-06-10	RODOLFO S. DE JESUS v. COA CARPIO, J.
The Court already ruled in several cases[8] that a water district is a government-owned and controlled corporation with a special charter since it is created pursuant to a special law, PD 198. The COA has the authority to investigate whether directors, officials or employees of government-owned and controlled corporations, receiving additional allowances and bonuses, are entitled to such benefits under applicable laws. Thus, water districts are subject to the jurisdiction of the COA.[9]