Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 111 views

    Cuevas vs. Atty. Macatangay

    Uploaded by

    Jean
    1) The petitioner sought to reverse a decision affirming the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) resolution invalidating her appointment as Director III of the National Museum through a petition for certiorari. 2) The CSC issued letter responses to requests for clarification regarding its resolution invalidating the petitioner's appointment. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC's letter responses could not be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as they did not decide the issue of validity of the petitioner's appointment, but merely provided clarification. The resolution invalidating the appointment was the proper subject of appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Cuevas vs. Atty. Macatangay

    Uploaded by

    Jean
    111 views1 page
    1) The petitioner sought to reverse a decision affirming the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) resolution invalidating her appointment as Director III of the National Museum through a petition for certiorari. 2) The CSC issued letter responses to requests for clarification regarding its resolution invalidating the petitioner's appointment. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC's letter responses could not be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as they did not decide the issue of validity of the petitioner's appointment, but merely provided clarification. The resolution invalidating the appointment was the proper subject of appeal.

    Original Title

    Cuevas vs. Atty. Macatangay.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner sought to reverse a decision affirming the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) resolution invalidating her appointment as Director III of the National Museum through a petition for certiorari. 2) The CSC issued letter responses to requests for clarification regarding its resolution invalidating the petitioner's appointment. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC's letter responses could not be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as they did not decide the issue of validity of the petitioner's appointment, but merely provided clarification. The resolution invalidating the appointment was the proper subject of appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Cuevas vs. Atty. Macatangay

    Uploaded by

    Jean
    1) The petitioner sought to reverse a decision affirming the Civil Service Commission's (CSC) resolution invalidating her appointment as Director III of the National Museum through a petition for certiorari. 2) The CSC issued letter responses to requests for clarification regarding its resolution invalidating the petitioner's appointment. 3) The Supreme Court ruled that the CSC's letter responses could not be the subject of a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, as they did not decide the issue of validity of the petitioner's appointment, but merely provided clarification. The resolution invalidating the appointment was the proper subject of appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    LETTER-RESPONSES OF THE CSC CONTAINING MERE CLARIFICATIONS AND

    PRODEDURAL RULES MAY NOT BE SUBJECT OF A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI UNDER


    RULE 65
    Maharlika A. Cuevas vs. Atty. Myrna V. Macatangay
    G.R. No. 223751; March 15, 2017
    Peralta, J.
    FACTS: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 filed petitioner Maharlika A.
    Cuevas that seeks to reverse and set aside CA decision affirming the CSC
    Resolution invalidating petitioner's appointment as Director III of the National Museum (NM).
    Petitioner was appointed as Director III of NM. Elenita Alba filed a protest with the CSC, the
    latter referring the matter to the NM for resolution. In a letter to the CSC, the NM dismissed the
    protest and informed the CSC that the decision on petitioner's appointment is final.
    Alba appealed the dismissal of her protest to the CSC. The appeal was granted and the
    approval of Cuevas' appointment was recalled in CSC Resolution No. 10-1438. Director Barns,
    Director IV of the NM, wrote the CSC asking for a clarification and reconsideration of the
    October 14, 2010 letter. The CSC replied in a letter dated June 27, 2011 declaring that its
    resolution is final and executory because the proper party failed to appeal the resolution.
    Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the June 27, 2011 letter. Petitioner received a copy
    of the CSC's letter dated September 26, 2011 denying his motion stating that the said letter to
    Director Barns is not the main action recalling and invalidating the appointment but a mere
    clarification on the effects thereof, hence, it is not the proper subject of a motion for
    reconsideration or appeal.
    Petitioner then elevated the case to the CA through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65
    alleging that the CSC gravely abused its discretion. The CA denied the petition ruling that the
    assailed orders of the CSC are only letter-responses and not the orders contemplated by the
    Rules which can be assailed in a petition for certiorari. Hence, the present petition.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the letter-responses of the CSC may be subject of a petition for
    certiorari under Rule 65
    HELD: No. The letter-responses of the CSC may not be subject of a petition for certiorari under
    Rule 65.
    According to petitioner, a letter-response can be the subject of a petition for certiorari as already
    ruled by this Court in National Development Company v. Collector of Customs. However, as
    correctly observed by the OSG, the case cited by petitioner is misapplied. In the said case, the
    subject letter was, in fact, a resolution or decision that found therein petitioners guilty of a
    violation of the Tariff and Customs Code, while in the present petition, the letter-responses of
    the CSC did not decide the issue on the validity or invalidity of petitioner's appointment.
    In the instant case, the June 27, 2011 communication of the CSC addressed to NM merely
    answered the clarifications requested by NM Director IV Jeremy Barns. The same can also be
    said of the September 26, 2011 letter of the CSC to petitioner, addressing the latter's Motion for
    Reconsideration. The June 27, 2011 and September 26, 2011 CSC letters did not decide the
    issue pertaining to the validity or the invalidity of petitioner's appointment which, precisely, was
    the subject of CSC Resolution No. 10-1438.
    It is, therefore, CSC Resolution No. 10-1438 that should have been the subject of an appeal as
    it contained the decision of the said Commission as to the invalidity of petitioner's appointment
    as Director III of the National Museum and not the said letter- responses.

    You might also like