Buenaflor v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 201607, 15 February 2017

9/24/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

G.R. No. 201607. February 15, 2017.*

HON. CESAR D. BUENAFLOR, petitioner, vs. JOSE R.
RAMIREZ, JR., respondent.
Administrative Agencies; Civil Service Commission;

Jurisdiction; Disciplinary cases and cases involving personnel
actions affect-
_______________
** Designated fifth member of the Third Division per Special Order No.
2417 dated January 4, 2017.
* THIRD DIVISION.

624
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Buenaflor vs. Ramirez, Jr.
ing employees in the Civil Service, like appointment or

separation from the service, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Civil Service Commission (CSC).—It cannot be disputed that
Ramirez’s complaint was thereby challenging the validity of his
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016609791b9d0fcd3907003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/17
termination from the service, and that he thereby wanted the

RTC to pry into the circumstances of the termination. Such
challenge was outside of the RTC’s sphere of authority. Instead, it
was the CSC that was vested by law with jurisdiction to do so.
Disciplinary cases and cases involving personnel actions affecting
employees in the Civil Service, like appointment or separation
from the service, are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC.
Indeed, the Constitution vests in the CSC the jurisdiction over all
employees of the Government, including all its branches,
subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, as well as
government-owned or -controlled corporations with original
charters.
Same; Same; Same; The mere fact that the parties are
members of the Civil Service should not remove the controversy
from the general jurisdiction of the courts of justice and place them
under the special jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission
(CSC).—It is clarified that the CSC has jurisdiction over a case
involving a civil servant if it can be regarded as equivalent to a
labor dispute resoluble under the Labor Code; conversely, the
regular court has jurisdiction if the case can be decided under the
general laws, such as when the case is for the recovery of private
debts, or for the recovery of damages due to slanderous remarks of
the employer, or for malicious prosecution of the employees. The
mere fact that the parties are members of the Civil Service should
not remove the controversy from the general jurisdiction of the
courts of justice and place them under the special jurisdiction of
the CSC.
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Jurisdiction; Jurisdiction
over the subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the
law; it cannot be acquired through a waiver; it cannot be enlarged
by the omission of the parties; it cannot be conferred by the
acquiescence of the court.—Jurisdiction over the subject matter is
conferred only by the Constitution or the law; it cannot be
acquired through a waiver; it cannot be enlarged by the omission
of the parties; it cannot be conferred by the acquiescence of the
court. Specifically, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, did not
vest jurisdiction in the RTC over matters relating to the Civil
Service. Consequently, the RTC could not arrogate unto itself the
hearing and decision of a subject matter outside of its jurisdiction.

625
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 625

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Jose Sonny G. Matula for petitioner.
The Law Firm of Habitan, Ferrer, Chan, Tagapan,
Habitan & Associates for respondent.
BERSAMIN, J.:

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) has no jurisdiction over
a case involving the validity of the termination of
employment of an officer or employee of the Civil Service.

The Case

The petitioner appeals the resolutions promulgated on
January 31, 20121 and April 24, 2012,2 whereby the Court
of Appeals (CA) respectively affirmed the dismissal by the
RTC, Branch 96, in Quezon City of the petitioner’s appeal
for having been filed out of time and denied his motion for
reconsideration.

Antecedents

On August 27, 2001, Chairman Eufemio Domingo of the
Presidential Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC) appointed
respondent Jose R. Ramirez, Jr. as Executive Assistant III3
and concurrently designated him as Assistant Accountant.4
On
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 57-58; penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-

Salvador, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Rodil V.
Zalameda, concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 53-55.
3 Id., at pp. 79-80.
4 Id., at p. 100.

626

September 28, 2001, Chairman Domingo resigned,5 and

petitioner Cesar D. Buenaflor succeeded him. The
petitioner terminated Ramirez as of the same date as
Chairman Eugenio’s resignation on the ground that his
tenure had expired6 by virtue of the position of Executive
Assistant being personal and confidential, and, hence,
coterminous with that of the appointing authority.7
Believing that his appointment had been contractual in
nature, Ramirez sued in the RTC to declare his dismissal
null and void.8 The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 01-
4577-8, was raffled to Branch 96.
Buenaflor, represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), filed his answer,9 wherein he contended,
among others, that Ramirez had failed to exhaust
administrative remedies and should have instead filed an
administrative complaint in the Civil Service Commission
(CSC).10

Ruling of the RTC

On December 28, 2007, after trial, the RTC rendered
judgment declaring Buenaflor guilty of unlawful
termination because he had not discharged his burden of
proving that Ramirez’s employment was coterminous with
that of Chairman Domingo, and ruling in favor of Ramirez,
as follows:11
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the

plaintiff and hereby orders the defendant as his personal liability,
to pay plaintiff the following sums, to wit:
_______________
5 Id., at p. 61.
6 Id.
7 Id., at p. 83.
8 Id., at pp. 107-113.
9 Id., at pp. 114-126.
10 Id., at p. 119.
11 Id., at pp. 169-178.

627
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 627

1. P260,000.00 representing the lost income which he

could have earned if he was to finish his contractual
employment as actual damages;
2. P500,000.00 as moral damages;
3. P300,000.00 as exemplary damages;
4. P100,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees; and
5. Costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.12

Buenaflor seasonably filed his motion for
13
reconsideration, which the RTC denied on September 30,
2008.14
On September 22, 2011, the OSG filed a notice of
appeal,15 explaining therein the apparently belated filing,
thus:
x x x x
The defendant timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration of this
Honorable Court’s Decision dated December 28, 2001. On
September 30, 2008, this Honorable Court issued an Order
denying defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration. The OSG,
however, was able to get a copy of said Order only on September
15, 2011 when it procured a copy of the Order at the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96. Attached herewith as
Annex “A” is the Affidavit of Nilo Odilon L. Palestroque, Chief
Administrative Officer of the Civil Cases Division, OSG Docket
Management Service attesting to the fact that the OSG got hold of
the trial court’s Order only on September 15, 2011.
x x x x
_______________
12 Id., at p. 177.
13 Id., at pp. 179-194.
14 Id., at p. 317.
15 Id., at pp. 318-319.

628

The RTC, finding that the registry return card indicated

that the OSG had received a copy of the decision on
October 16, 2006, denied due course to the notice of appeal
of Buenaflor, and altogether dismissed the appeal for

having been filed out of time.16

Decision of the CA

Buenaflor assailed the order of the RTC by petition for
certiorari in the CA, alleging that the RTC thereby gravely
abused its discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.17
On January 31, 2012, however, the CA promulgated the
first assailed resolution dismissing the petition for
certiorari on technical grounds,18 viz.:
Filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1977 Revised Rules of Civil

Procedure, the instant petition for certiorari seeks the
nullification and setting aside of the October 11, 2011 Order
issued by public respondent, the Hon. Afable E. Cajigal in his
capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 96, in Civil Case No. Q-01-45778, which denied
petitioner’s September 30, 2011 Notice of Appeal.
A perusal of the petition shows the following infirmities which
warrant its outright dismissal.
First, the petition does not state the date of issue of petitioner’s
counsel’s Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE)
Certificate of Compliance, as required under Bar Matter No. 1922,
dated June 3, 2008.
_______________
16 Id., at p. 78.
17 Id., at pp. 59-77.
18 Id., at pp. 56-68. The grounds were, namely: (i) failure to state the
Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) Certificate of
Compliance, per Bar Matter No. 1922; (ii) the counsel’s Professional Tax
Certificate (PTC) was not current; and (iii) the actual addresses of the
parties are not stated in the petition pursuant to Section 3, Rule 46 of the
RULES OF COURT.

629
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 629

Second, petitioner’s counsel’s PTR number is not current.
Third, the actual addresses of the parties are not stated in the
petition, in violation of Section 3, Rule 46 of the Rules.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED DUE COURSE and
accordingly DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

Buenaflor moved for reconsideration, but the CA denied
his motion for reconsideration through the second assailed
resolution promulgated on April 24, 2012,19 stating:
This treats of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the

Court’s January 31, 2012 Resolution which dismissed the instant
petition for certiorari due to a number of procedural infirmities.
Contending that the procedural defects have been rectified,
petitioner now seeks an opportunity to have the case resolved on
its worth.
We deny the motion.
Despite the rectification of its procedural defects, a perusal of
the petition shows that it must fail just the same for lack of prima
facie merit. In certiorari proceedings under Rule 65, the inquiry is
essentially confined to issues of want or excess of jurisdiction and
grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent. A
circumspect perusal of this petition yielded no showing of any
grave abuse of discretion on the part of public respondent judge in
issuing the assailed October 11, 2011 Order which dismissed
petitioner’s September 30, 2011 Notice of Appeal for having been
filed way out of time. Petitioner failed to disprove the records of
the RTC which show that his counsel, the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG), received the September 30, 2008 Order denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on October 16,
_______________
19 Id., at p. 54.

630

2008. Thus petitioner’s Notice of Appeal filed 1,125 days

thereafter is clearly out of time. In the absence of clear and
convincing proof to the contrary, greater credence should be
accorded the RTC as it enjoys the presumption of regularity in the
performance of its official duties.
As to the September 22, 2011 Affidavit of the Chief, Civil Cases

Division, Docket Management Service (DMS) of the OSG, the
same will not save the day for petitioner. In justifying that copy of
the September 30, 2008 Order was “officially” received only on
September 15, 2011, the OSG essentially relied on the entries in
its Docket and document tracking system without supplementing
the same with periodic inquiries before the RTC. It is the duty of
the party and his counsel to device a system for the receipt of mail
intended for them, and matters internal to the clients and their
counsels, like those narrated in the affidavit, are not the concern
of this Court.
Finally, even conceding that a counsel has the obligation to
inform his client of the material developments in the case, this
obligation is balanced by a complementary duty on the part of a
party-litigant to remain in contact with his lawyer in order to be
informed of the progress of the case, more so that courts are not
duty-bound to warn him against any possible procedural blunder.
Litigants, represented by counsel should not expect that all they
need to do is sit back, relax and await the outcome of their case.
As what is at stake is his interest in the case, it is the
responsibility of petitioner to check its status from time to time
from his counsel or from the court.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, petitioner’s motion for
reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this appeal by petition for review on certiorari.

Issue

Buenaflor submits the following as the Issues for our
consideration, namely:

631
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 631

1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals, in arriving [at]

its decision and resolution, decided the case in accordance with
law and existing jurisprudence:
a. considering that findings and admonitions of the Honorable
Court [of Appeals] are at war with the facts and the law
obtaining in this case, thus legally reversible:
● Considering likewise that the September 30, 2011 Notice of
Appeal was timely filed; and
● private respondent Jose Ramirez as Executive Assistant, a

confidential and conterminous [sic] employees [sic] ended
his term as co-term employee with the resigned Chairman
and was not illegally terminated.
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abused
[sic] of discretion in not declaring that the RTC has no
jurisdiction to hear and decide the instant civil service related
case, which is under the sole jurisdiction of the CSC.20

On his part, Ramirez sustains the dismissal of the
appeal upon the grounds made extant in the assailed
resolutions.

Ruling of the Court

Buenaflor submits that it was the CSC, not the RTC,
that had jurisdiction over Ramirez’s complaint that
involved matters relative to the Civil Service.
The submission of Buenaflor is upheld.
The jurisdiction of a court over the subject matter of a
particular action is determined by the plaintiff’s allegations
in
_______________
20 Id., at pp. 29-30.

632

the complaint and the principal relief he seeks in the light

of the law that apportions the jurisdiction of courts.21
Accordingly, we need to peruse the complaint of Ramirez to
determine the issue presented here. The complaint
relevantly stated, viz.:
COMPLAINT
(With Provisional Remedy)
Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel, to this
Honorable Court, respectfully alleges that:
x x x x
III
Plaintiff was appointed as Executive Assistant III, on

contractual basis by then Chairman Eufemio Domingo of the
Presidential Commission Against Graft and Corruption, effective
September 3, 2001. x x x
IV
On September 17, 2001, plaintiff was designated as Assistant
Accountant. x x x
V
Since the appointment is contractual and no period was stated,
it is clearly understood that the term is for a period of one (1) year
from September 3, 2001 and subject to renewal, pursuant to
Memorandum Circular No. 38 issued by the Civil Service
Commission.
VI
On or about September 20, 2001, Chairman Eufemio Domingo
resigned as Chairman and the defendant
_______________
21 Philippine Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Teodoro R.

Yangco 2nd and 3rd Generation Heirs Foundation, Inc., G.R. No. 199595,
April 2, 2014, 720 SCRA 522, 543-544; Heirs of Generoso Sebe v. Heirs of
Veronico Sevilla, G.R. No. 174497, October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 395, 400.

633
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 633

was appointed as the new Chairman of the Presidential

Commission Against Graft and Corruption.
VII
On September 28, 2001, without due process and notice,
the defendant, without cause and with grave abuse of
discretion, capriciously, whimsically and illegally
terminated the services of the plaintiff, in violation of the
Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 38.
VIII
Plaintiff is a Certified Public Accountant and a First Grade
Civil Service eligible, hence very much qualified for the job. His
appointment is not coterminous with the term of Chairman
Domingo as can be gleaned from his job description. x x x
IX
The termination of plaintiff’s services is not even
supported by any written notice to the herein plaintiff,
stating therein the reasons for his termination, but was

done in an orthodox manner, by merely preventing the
plaintiff to report for work.
x x x x
XI
Finally, on November 23, 2001, copy of a service record signed
by Jose Sonny G. Matala, Executive Director dated November 20,
2001, was given to the plaintiff embodying the cause of separation
which states:
“Coterminous with Chairman Domingo being personal
and confidential staff x x x x x x.”
x x x x

634

XII
The termination of plaintiff by the defendant is illegal
and violative of due process as plaintiff’s appointment as
contractual employee will expire or September 3, 2002 only.
XIII
Defendant, being a lawyer and formerly connected with the
Civil Service Commission, is aware of the law that contractual
employment without a definite period is presumed to be for one
(1) year pursuant to Civil Service Commission Memorandum
Circular No. 38.
x x x x
XVI
The filing of this case in court is not violative of the Rule on
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, as there are several
exceptions in the exhaustion of administrative remedies
enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Paat v. Court of
Appeals, 266 SCRA 167, such as:
(1) when there is a violation of due process;
(2) when the issue involved is purely a legal question;
(3) when the administrative action is patently illegal
amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction;
(4) x x x x x x x x x x x;
(5) when there is irreparable injury;
(7) when to require exhaustion of remedies would be
unreasonable;

(10) when the rule does not provide a plain, speedy and
adequate remedy; and

635
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 635

(11) when there are circumstances indicating the

urgency of judicial intervention.
XVII
The illegal act of the defendant of terminating plaintiff’s
services in violation of the latter’s right to security of tenure and
due process has caused plaintiff to suffer moral shock, anxiety,
besmirched reputation, sleepless nights, social humiliation,
embarrassment and similar injuries, thereby entitling him to
recover damages from the defendant in the amount of no less than
P500,000.00.
x x x x
ALLEGATION IN SUPPORT OF THE PRAYER FOR THE
IMMEDIATE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF PRELIMINARY
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
x x x x
XXII
Irreparable injury has been caused and continue to
cause plaintiff, hence, the necessity of a Writ of
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction, ordering the
defendant to reinstate the plaintiff, while this case is being
heard.
x x x x
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully prayed of this
Honorable Court to render judgment in favor of the plaintiff and
against the defendant by:
BEFORE HEARING ON THE MERITS
ORDERING the immediate issuance of a Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction, COMMANDING the defendant to
reinstate immediately the plaintiff to his previous position.

636
AFTER HEARING ON THE MERITS

1. DECLARING the Preliminary Mandatory Injunction as
PERMANENT;
2. DECLARING the DISMISSAL of the plaintiff as
illegal and violative of plaintiff’s right to due process and
security of tenure;
3. x x x x.22

It cannot be disputed that Ramirez’s complaint was
thereby challenging the validity of his termination from the
service, and that he thereby wanted the RTC to pry into
the circumstances of the termination. Such challenge was
outside of the RTC’s sphere of authority. Instead, it was the
CSC that was vested by law with jurisdiction to do so.
Disciplinary cases and cases involving personnel actions
affecting employees in the Civil Service, like appointment
or separation from the service, are within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the CSC.23 Indeed, the Constitution vests in
the CSC the jurisdiction over all employees of the
Government, including all its branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies, as well as government-
owned or -controlled corporations with original charters.24
Ramirez was one such employee. The agency in which he
had been appointed by Chairman Domingo was the PAGC,
an office established by President Macapagal-Arroyo
through Executive Order No. 1225 as an agency under the
Office of the President. His complaint thus came under the
jurisdiction of the CSC. We reiterate that any question
regarding the appointment or separation from the service
of a civil servant
_______________
22 Rollo, pp. 107-113.

23 Olanda v. Bugayong, G.R. No. 140917, October 10, 2003, 413 SCRA
255, 259.
24 Section 2, Article IX(B) (Civil Service Commission), 1987
Constitution.
25 Dated April 16, 2001.

637
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 637

was lodged in the CSC as the sole arbiter of controversies

relating to the Civil Service.26 In that regard, Section 12 of
Chapter 1 (General Provisions), Subtitle A (Civil Service
Commission), Title I (Constitutional Commissions) of the
Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292)
relevantly provides:
Section 12. Powers and Functions.—The Commission shall

have the following powers and functions:
x x x x
(5) Render opinion and rulings on all personnel and
other Civil Service matters which shall be binding on all
heads of departments, offices and agencies and which may
be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari;
x x x x
(11) Hear and decide administrative cases instituted by
or brought before it directly or on appeal, including
contested appointments, and review decisions and actions
of its offices and of the agencies attached to it. Officials
and employees who fail to comply with such decisions,
orders, or rulings shall be liable for contempt of the
Commission. Its decisions, orders, or rulings shall be final
and executory. Such decisions, orders, or rulings may be
brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party
within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
x x x x

It is clarified that the CSC has jurisdiction over a case
involving a civil servant if it can be regarded as equivalent
to a labor dispute resoluble under the Labor Code;
conversely, the
_______________
26 Catipon, Jr. v. Japson, G.R. No. 191787, June 22, 2015, 759 SCRA
557, 571; Corsiga v. Defensor, G.R. No. 139302, October 28, 2002, 391
SCRA 267, 272-273.

638
regular court has jurisdiction if the case can be decided

under the general laws, such as when the case is for the
recovery of private debts, or for the recovery of damages
due to slanderous remarks of the employer, or for malicious
prosecution of the employees.27 The mere fact that the
parties are members of the Civil Service should not remove
the controversy from the general jurisdiction of the courts
of justice and place them under the special jurisdiction of
the CSC.28
Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred only by
the Constitution or the law; it cannot be acquired through a
waiver; it cannot be enlarged by the omission of the parties;
it cannot be conferred by the acquiescence of the court.29
Specifically, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended, did not
vest jurisdiction in the RTC over matters relating to the
Civil Service. Consequently, the RTC could not arrogate
unto itself the hearing and decision of a subject matter
outside of its jurisdiction.
Buenaflor was entirely justified in raising in his answer
the special and affirmative defense that the RTC was
bereft of jurisdiction to hear and resolve Ramirez’s
complaint. When a court has no jurisdiction over the
subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the
action.30 Upon the filing of the complaint, the RTC could
only have dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Any further
actions the RTC took, including rendering the decision on
December 28, 2007, were void and ineffectual. Verily, the
decisions or orders rendered by courts
_______________
27 Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

93396, September 30, 1991, 202 SCRA 191, 195-196.
28 Id., at p. 196.
29 Tumpag v. Tumpag, G.R. No. 199133, September 29, 2014, 737
SCRA 62, 72; Republic v. Bantigue Point Development Corporation, G.R.
No. 162322, March 14, 2012, 668 SCRA 158, 164.
30 Katon v. Palanca, Jr., G.R. No. 151149, September 7, 2004, 437
SCRA 565, 575.

639
VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 639
without or in excess of their jurisdiction are void,31 and

cannot be the source of any right, or the creator of any
obligation.32
The void and ineffectual decision of the RTC did not
attain finality despite the supposedly belated appeal by
Buenaflor. As emphasized in Nazareno v. Court of
Appeals,33 a void judgment — being nonexistent in legal
contemplation — does not become final and executory even
with the belated filing of an appeal. Moreover, the Court
has pronounced in National Housing Authority v.
Commission on Settlement of Land Problems34 that because
a void judgment does not attain finality, a petition for
certiorari to declare its nullity should not be dismissed for
untimeliness.35 Under the circumstances, the CA should
have heard and granted the petition for certiorari of
Buenaflor instead of dismissing it for the reasons advanced
in the assailed resolutions.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition for
certiorari; ANNULS and SETS ASIDE the resolutions
promulgated by the Court of Appeals on January 31, 2012
and April 24, 2012; DISMISSES Civil Case No. 01-4577-8
entitled Jose R. Ramirez v. Hon. Cesar D. Buenaflor; and
ORDERS the respondent to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Reyes, Jardeleza and

Caguioa,** JJ., concur.
_______________
31 De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, G.R. No. 194751,

November 26, 2014, 743 SCRA 52, 70-71.
32 Zacarias v. Acanay, G.R. No. 202354, September 24, 2014, 736
SCRA 508, 522.
33 G.R. No. 111610, February 27, 2002, 378 SCRA 28, 35.
34 G.R. No. 142601, October 23, 2006, 505 SCRA 38.
35 Id., at pp. 46-47.
**Designated additional member of the Third Division per Special
Order No. 2417 dated January 4, 2017.

640
Petition granted, resolutions annulled and set aside.
Notes.—The Civil Service Commission (CSC), as the

central personnel agency of the government, has the power
to appoint and discipline its officials and employees and to
hear and decide administrative cases instituted by or
brought before it directly or on appeal. (Mamiscal vs.
Abdullah, 761 SCRA 39 [2015])
The Civil Service Commission (CSC) has jurisdiction
over all employees of government branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-
owned or
-controlled corporations with original charters.
(Department of Finance vs. Dela Cruz, Jr., 768 SCRA 73
[2015])

——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Buenaflor v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 201607, 15 February 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buenaflor v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 201607, 15 February 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Buenaflor v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 201607, 15 February 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/24/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 817

G.R. No. 201607. February 15, 2017.*

Administrative Agencies; Civil Service Commission;

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ing employees in the Civil Service, like appointment or

termination from the service, and that he thereby wanted the

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 625

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

1 Rollo, pp. 57-58; penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

September 28, 2001, Chairman Domingo resigned,5 and

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 627

1. P260,000.00 representing the lost income which he

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The RTC, finding that the registry return card indicated

of Buenaflor, and altogether dismissed the appeal for

Filed pursuant to Rule 65 of the 1977 Revised Rules of Civil

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 629

Second, petitioner’s counsel’s PTR number is not current.

This treats of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the

630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

2008. Thus petitioner’s Notice of Appeal filed 1,125 days

As to the September 22, 2011 Affidavit of the Chief, Civil Cases

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 631

1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals, in arriving [at]

● private respondent Jose Ramirez as Executive Assistant, a

20 Id., at pp. 29-30.

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the complaint and the principal relief he seeks in the light

Plaintiff was appointed as Executive Assistant III, on

21 Philippine Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, Inc. v. Teodoro R.

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 633

was appointed as the new Chairman of the Presidential

stating therein the reasons for his termination, but was

634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

(9) x x x x x x x x x x x;

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 635

(11) when there are circumstances indicating the

636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Buenaflor vs. Ramirez, Jr.

AFTER HEARING ON THE MERITS

22 Rollo, pp. 107-113.

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 637

was lodged in the CSC as the sole arbiter of controversies

Section 12. Powers and Functions.—The Commission shall

638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Buenaflor vs. Ramirez, Jr.

regular court has jurisdiction if the case can be decided

27 Phil. Amusement and Gaming Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

VOL. 817, FEBRUARY 15, 2017 639

Buenaflor vs. Ramirez, Jr.

without or in excess of their jurisdiction are void,31 and

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Reyes, Jardeleza and

31 De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation, G.R. No. 194751,

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Buenaflor vs. Ramirez, Jr.

Petition granted, resolutions annulled and set aside.

Notes.—The Civil Service Commission (CSC), as the

© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.