Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDUARDO P. CORSIGA v. QUIRICO G. DEFENSOR

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 163109 2014-01-22	MARICHU G. EJERA v. BEAU HENRY L. MERTO BERSAMIN, J.
In Corsiga v. Judge Defensor,[49] which concerned the reassignment of an engineer in the National Irrigation Authority, the Court ruled: Section 13 Rule VII of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 (the Adm. Code of 1987) provides how appeal can be taken from a decision of a department or agency head. It states that such decision shall be brought to the Merit System Protection Board (now the CSC En Banc per CSC Resolution No. 93-2387 dated June 29, 1993). It is the intent of the Civil Service Law, in requiring the establishment of a grievance procedure in Rule XII, Section 6 of the same rules, that decisions of lower level officials be appealed to the agency head, then to the Civil Service Commission. Decisions of the Civil Service Commission, in turn, may be elevated to the Court of Appeals. Under this set up, the trial court does not have jurisdiction over personnel actions and, thus, committed an error in taking jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 22462. The trial court should have dismissed the case on motion of petitioner and let private respondent question RMO No. 52 before the NIA Administrator, and then the Civil Service Commission. As held in Mantala v. Salvador,[50] cases involving personnel actions, reassignment included, affecting civil service employees, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 172027 2010-07-29	GONZALO S. GO v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The appellate court is correct in ruling that the remedy availed of by Go is improper but not for the reason it proffered. Both Go and the appellate court overlooked the fact that the instant case involves personnel action in the government, i.e., Go is questioning the reallocation and demotion directed by the DBM which resulted in the diminution of his benefits. Thus, the proper remedy available to Go is to question the DBM denial of his protest before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving personnel actions, and not before the OP. This was our ruling involving personnel actions in Mantala v. Salvador,[17] cited in Corsiga v. Defensor[18] and as reiterated in Olanda v. Bugayong.[19] In turn, the resolution of the CSC may be elevated to the CA under Rule 43 and, finally, before this Court. Consequently, Go availed himself of the wrong remedy when he went directly to the CA under Rule 43 without repairing first to the CSC.
	GR NO. 154472 2005-06-30	ALEXANDER R. LOPEZ v. METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS TINGA, J.
The MWSS is a government owned and controlled corporation with its own charter, Republic Act No. 6234.[53] As such, it is covered by the civil service[54] and falls under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.[55]
	GR No. 140917 2003-10-10	MENELIETO A. OLANDA v. LEONARDO G. BUGAYONG CARPIO MORALES, J.
In Corsiga v. Defensor,[21] this Court held:The Civil Service Commission has jurisdiction over all employees of Government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. As such, it is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service. The National Irrigation Administration, created under Presidential Decree No. 1702, is a government-owned and controlled corporation with original charter. Thus, being an employee of the NIA, private respondent is covered by the Civil Service Commission.