Jan Edriel B.
Alfonso
JD 1-B
Date: January 11, 2018 | G.R. No. 196890
Ponente: NOEL GIMENEZ TIJAM - Associate Justice
Petitioner: Career Executive Service Board
Respondent: Civil Service Commission and Blesilda v. Lodevico
SC Ruling: The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 31, 2011, and Resolution
dated April 7, 2011, of the Civil Service Commission in CSC Decision No. 11-0047 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Facts:
1. Blesilda Lodevico was appointed by then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on May 14,
2008, as Director III, Recruitment and Career Development Service, CESB.
2. Lodevico possesses a Career Service Executive Eligibility since November 29, 2001, as
evidenced by the Certificate of Eligibility issued by the CSC.
3. June 30, 2010: Office of the President issued a memorandum (MC 1) that declared all
non-executive service positions vacant.
4. July 16, 2010: OP promulgated the Implementing Guidelines of MC 1, which states that
non-Career Executive Service Officers in all agencies of the Executive Branch shall
remain in office and continue to perform their duties until July 31, 2010, or until their
resignations have been accepted and/or their replacements have been appointed or
designated, whichever comes first.
5. Pursuant to MC 1, Abesamis of CESB issued a memorandum informing Lovedico that
she shall only remain in office until July 21, 2010
6. Lodevico filed her appeal on the memorandum issued by Abesamis before the CSC.
7. CSC ruled in favor of Lodevico and declared the memorandum null and void.
8. The Career Executive Service board filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was denied.
Hence, this petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
9. Respondents aver that the petitioners resorted to a wrong mode of appeal as Rule 43 is
the proper remedy. Hence, the petition should be dismissed.
Issue: Whether or not, The filing of petition and prohibition under Rule 65 proper.
Arguments:
1. Lodevico and Civil Service Commission mainly argue that Career Executive Service
Board acted within the bounds of its authority in issuing the assailed decision as it has
jurisdiction over her appeal.
2. They contend that the petitioners resorted to the wrong mode of appeal. Hence, the
petition should be dismissed.
Court Ruling: No, procedurally it is not proper, however, the Court ruled that the rules of
procedure should give way to strong considerations of substantive justice. Thus, a rigid
application of the rules of procedure will not be 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.
The court considered the foregoing and the circumstances obtaining the case and allowed the
application of the liberality of the rules of procedure to give due course to the petition filed by
the petitioners as the broader interest of justice so requires.
Bar Questions:
2019 Bar Examinations
Remedial Law
Ms. R received a subpoena ad testificandum from a Regional Trial Court (RTC) directing her to
appear and testify in a case. Despite notice and without any sufficient justification, Ms. R failed
to appear. This prompted the RTC to issue a show-cause order directing Ms. R to explain, within
ten (10) days, why she should not be cited for contempt for her nonappearance despite receipt of
the subpoena. Ms. R, however, did not file her comment. After due hearing with notice to the
parties, the RTC cited her in indirect contempt, and consequently, ordered her arrest.
Ms. R moved to quash the warrant issued for her arrest, claiming that a formal charge should
have been filed against her, and that the same should have been docketed and prosecuted as a
separate case against her. She thus claimed that since this procedure was not followed, the order
citing her in contempt is null and void.
(a) Is Ms. R's contention tenable? Explain.
(b) What is the proper mode of appeal should Ms. R decide to assail her contempt
citation? Will the filing of such appeal automatically result in the suspension of the
execution of judgment? Explain.
