Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 409 views

    CSC v. Madlawi B. Magoyag

    Uploaded by

    Trem Gallente
    The Civil Service Commission denied Madlawi Magoyag's request to correct his date of birth in employment records based on a trial court decision, claiming the decision was not yet final. Madlawi elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which ordered the CSC to comply. The Supreme Court ruled the CSC's resolutions denying Madlawi's request were quasi-judicial actions as they denied him a right from the trial court decision. Therefore, appealing under Rule 43 was proper procedure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CSC v. Madlawi B. Magoyag

    Uploaded by

    Trem Gallente
    409 views1 page
    The Civil Service Commission denied Madlawi Magoyag's request to correct his date of birth in employment records based on a trial court decision, claiming the decision was not yet final. Madlawi elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which ordered the CSC to comply. The Supreme Court ruled the CSC's resolutions denying Madlawi's request were quasi-judicial actions as they denied him a right from the trial court decision. Therefore, appealing under Rule 43 was proper procedure.

    Original Description:

    Csc v magoyag

    Original Title

    Csc v. Madlawi b. Magoyag

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Civil Service Commission denied Madlawi Magoyag's request to correct his date of birth in employment records based on a trial court decision, claiming the decision was not yet final. Madlawi elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which ordered the CSC to comply. The Supreme Court ruled the CSC's resolutions denying Madlawi's request were quasi-judicial actions as they denied him a right from the trial court decision. Therefore, appealing under Rule 43 was proper procedure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    409 views1 page

    CSC v. Madlawi B. Magoyag

    Uploaded by

    Trem Gallente
    The Civil Service Commission denied Madlawi Magoyag's request to correct his date of birth in employment records based on a trial court decision, claiming the decision was not yet final. Madlawi elevated the case to the Court of Appeals which ordered the CSC to comply. The Supreme Court ruled the CSC's resolutions denying Madlawi's request were quasi-judicial actions as they denied him a right from the trial court decision. Therefore, appealing under Rule 43 was proper procedure.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Remedial Law- Appeal

    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION V. MADLAWI B. MAGOYAG


    GR. No. 197792, December 9, 2015

    FACTS: Madlawi Magoyag, a government employee, filed with the RTC of Lanao Del Sur
    a Petition for Correction of his date of birth from July 22, 1947 to July 22, 1954; the latter being
    the date appearing in his Certificate of Live Birth. The wrong date appeared in the records of the
    GSIS and was maintained in the entire length of his stay in the government. After considering all
    the supporting evidence submitted by Madlawi, the RTC granted his petition and directed the
    Local Civil Registrar and Civil Service Commission to effect the correction in their respective
    records. Madlawi requested the CSC to correct his date of birth appearing in his employment
    records as directed by the RTC in its decision but the CSC denied the request on the ground that
    the decision of the RTC was not yet final and executory. Madlawi filed a Motion for
    Reconsideration attaching thereto the Certificate of Finality issued by the RTC but the same was
    denied by the CSC. Aggrieved, Madlawi filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules
    of Court to the Court of Appeals. The CA granted the petition and ordered the CSC to comply
    with the decision of the RTC. CSC filed a motion for reconsideration with the CA but was
    denied. CSC elevated the case to the Supreme Court arguing that the resolutions it issued
    denying the request of Madlawi are mere responses to the said request and although discretion
    was exercised in such denial, it cannot be said to be judicial in nature because there were no
    investigations or hearings held to determine or ascertain the facts. Thus, the issuance of those
    resolutions was not the result of its quasi-judicial functions but of its administrative function. As
    such, Madlawi erred in resorting to Rule 43 when he elevated the case to the CA because only
    those judgments, final orders or resolutions issued in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions
    may be the subject of a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Petition for Review under Rule 43 is proper under the facts?

    RULING: The SC ruled that the resolutions issued by the petitioner are not merely responses
    but actually quasi-judicial actions because the result of those resolutions is the denial of a right
    conferred by the RTC to the respondent. When the petitioner denied the request of the respondent
    in the exercised of its discretion, it did not merely perform an administrative function but had
    already adjudicated on the matted. Therefore, resort to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court was proper.

    You might also like