CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD vs CIVIL SERVICE ● Pursuant to MC 1, Abesamis of CESB issued a memorandum

COMMISSION
G.R. No. 196890 | Date January 11, 2018
Ponente: Justice Tjam
(Digested by: GARY RAFAEL S. VALERA// Edited by: Lopez)
Petitioner: CAREER EXECUTIVE SERVICE BOARD, (CESB) represented
by CHAIRPERSON BERNARDO P. ABESAMIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
MA. ANTHONETTE VELASCO-ALLONES, and DEPUTY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR ARTURO M. LACHICA
Respondent: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, represented by CHAIRMAN
ISSUE: WON Certiorari and Prohibition under rule 65 is proper? No
FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III and BLESILDA V. LODEVICO
informing Lodevico that she shall only remain in office until July 31,
2010.
● Lodevico filed her appeal on the memorandum issued by Abesamis
before the CSC. CSC ruled in favor of Leodevico and declared the
memorandum null and void.
● Career Executive Service board filed an MR but it was denied.
Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 62.
● Respondents aver that the petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of
appeal as Rule 43 is the proper remedy.

HELD:
DOCTRINE: It is well-settled that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and
● It is well-settled that the extraordinary remedies of certiorari and
prohibition are resorted to only where 1. a tribunal, a board or an officer
prohibition are resorted to only where (a) a tribunal, a board or an
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
jurisdiction; and 2. there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and (b) there is no appeal
remedy in the ordinary course of law except in cases (a) when public welfare
or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of
and the advancement of public policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests
law.
of justice so require; (c) when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the
● In the case at bar, it is clear that the second requirement is absent as
questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority
petition for review under Section 118 of Rule 43 ·is available to
petitioners. However, there are exceptions to the aforementioned
FACTS:
rule, namely: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public
● Blesilda Lodevico (Lodevico) was appointed by then President Gloria
policy dictate; (b) when the broader interests of justice so require; (c)
Macapagal-Arroyo on May 14, 2008 as Director III, Recruitment and
when the writs issued are null; and (d) when the questioned order
Career Development Service, CESB.
amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority.
● Lodevico possesses a Career Service Executive Eligibility since
● In the case of Leyte IV Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Leyeco IV
November 29, 2001, as evidenced by the Certificate of Eligibility
Employees Union-ALU, We relaxed the application of the rules of
issued by the CSC.
procedure to meet the ends of justice. In Leyte IV, the petitioners
● June 30, 2010: Office of the President (OP) issued Memorandum
filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 instead of filing a petition
Circular 1 (MC1) which declared all non-career executive service
for review under Rule 43, but We gave due course to the petition to
positions vacant.
● July 16, 2010: OP promulgated the Implementing Guidelines of MC accommodate the broader interest of justice.
● In allowing the liberal application of procedural rules, We
1, which states that all non-Career Executive Service Officers (non-
emphasized in the case of Obut v. Court of Appeals, et al. that
CESO) in all agencies of the Executive Branch shall remain in office
placing the administration of justice in a straightjacket, i.e., following
and continue to perform their duties until July 31, 2010 or until their
technical rules on procedure would result into a poor kind of justice.
resignations have been accepted and/or their replacements have
Thus, a rigid application of the rules of procedure will not be
been appointed or designated, whichever comes first.
entertained if it will obstruct rather than serve the broader interests of
 justice in the light of the prevailing circumstances of the case under
consideration.
● Considering the foregoing and the circumstances obtaining in this
case, We allow the application of liberality of the rules of procedure
to give due course to the petition filed by petitioners as the broader
interest of justice so requires.
● Main Ruling of the Case: Lodevico’s appointment is merely
temporary so her services may b e terminated with or wihtout cause.
Hence, her discharge was proper. CES Eligibility and her
appointment as Director do not automatically mean that her
appointment is permanent.