4236 CA Ruling in CA GR No 11975 Petition for Review of the CSC Decision and

4236 ca ruling in ca gr no 11975 petition for review

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 2 pages.

filed a Petition for Mandamus before RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 4236. CA Ruling in CA G.R. No. 11975 (Petition for Review of the CSC Decision and Resolution; issue: w/n respondents’ appointments are valid) Granted the petition Respondents’ appointments are not valid for having been issued in violation of CSC Rules Respondents can no longer claim entitlement to the payment of their salaries Aggrieved, respondent sought recourse from this Court via a Rule 45 Petition docketed as G.R. No. 203835 Court’s Reso in G.R. No. 203835 Denied petition for review of the CA decision (in G.R. No. 11975) prior to RTC’s resolution of the petition for mandamus Affirmed CA’s finding that respondents’ appointments are invalid Respondents filed for MR RTC Decision in Civil Case No. 4236(Petition for Mandamus by respondents) Ruled in favor of respondents ordered petitioner to: (pending this Court’s action on respondents’ MR in GR 203835) o Pay the salaries and other benefits o Appropriate the necessary funds therefor o Incorporate such funds, if none, in the Annual Budget of the Province o Give immediately due or rightful recognition to Titong and Abrugar According to RTC, the non-issuance by the CA of a restraining order or injunction restraining it from proceeding with CC 4236, coupled with respondent’s filing of a Rule 45 petition before SC (G.R. No. 203835) results in the continued effectivity of the CSC Decision in respondents’ favor This is consistent with Sec. 82 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service which states that "the filing and pendency of a petition for review with the CA or certiorari with the SC shall not stop the execution of the final decision of the Commission, unless the Court issues a restraining order or an injunction.” Petitioner – MR – denied – instant petition before SC. The Court's Resolution in G.R. No. 203835 denying Reconsideration of the February 27, 2013 Resolution February 10, 2014: Feb 27, 2013 Reso Affirmed o Upheld finding of the CA that the appointments are invalid thereby resolving with finality G.R. No. 203835 Issue:
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read both pages?

  • Fall '14
  • Injunction

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes