JELBERT B. GALICTO vs. H.E. PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III, in his capacity as President of the Republic of the Philippines; ATTY. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., in his capacity as Executive Secretary; and FLORENCIO B. ABAD, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, Respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner is a Filipino citizen and an employee of the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PhilHealth). He is currently holding the position of Court Attorney IV and is assigned at the PhilHealth Regional Office CARAGA.
On July 26, 2010, Pres. Aquino made in public the alleged excessive allowances, bonuses and other benefits of Officers and Members of the Board of Directors of the Manila Waterworks and Sewerage System - a government owned and controlled corporation (GOCC) which has been unable to meet its standing obligations.
The Senate of the Philippines conducted an inquiry in aid of legislation on the reported excessive salaries, allowances and other benefits of the GOCCs and government financial institutions (GFIs).
According to the findings of the said inquiry, "officials and governing boards of various GOCCs and GFIs have been granting themselves unwarranted allowances, bonuses, incentives, stock options, and other benefits as well as other irregular and abusive practices.
The Senate issued Senate Resolution No. 17; "Urging the President to order the immediate suspension of the unusually large and apparently excessive allowances and bonuses, incentives and other perks of members of the governing boards of GOCCs and GFIs.
President Aquino, then, issued EO 7, entitled "Directing the Rationalization of the Compensation and Position Classification System in the GOCCs and GFIs and for Other Purposes". The said executive order provides for the guiding principles and framework to establish a fixed compensation and position classification system for GOCCs and GFIs. A Task Force was also created to review all remunerations of GOCC and GFI employees and officers, while GOCCs and GFIs were ordered to submit to the Task Force information regarding their compensation. Lastly, EO 7 ordered:
(1) a moratorium on the increases in the salaries and other forms of compensation, except salary adjustments under EO 8011 and EO 900, of all GOCC and GFI employees for an indefinite period to be set by the President; and
(2) a suspension of all allowances, bonuses and incentives of members of the Board of Directors/Trustees until December 31,2010.
The petitioner claims that as PhilHealth employee, he is affected by the implementation of EO 7, which was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for Certiorari and Prohibition is the proper remedy of the petitioner to nullify and enjoin the implementation of Executive Order No. 7, issued by the Office of the President.
RULING:
The Court held that Certiorari is not the proper remedy.
Under the Rules of Court, petitions for Certiorari and Prohibition are availed of to a question judicial, quasi-judicial and mandatory acts.
The issuance of EO 7 is not judicial, quasi-judicial or a mandatory act. A petition for declaratory relief under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, filed with the RTC, is the proper recourse to assail the validity of EO 7.
Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court provides: " Any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance or any other governmental regulation may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court to determine any question of construction or validity arising and for a declaration of his rights or duties, thereunder.
The Court resolved to dismiss the petition for certiorari.
Elsewise stated, for a writ of certiorari to issue, the following requisites must concur:
(1) It must be directed against a tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
(2) The tribunal, board or officer must have acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
(3) There is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.
The respondents do not fall within the ambit of tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Secondly, although the instant petition is styled as a petition for certiorari, in essence, it seeks the declaration by this Court of the unconstitutionality or illegality of the questioned ordinance and executive order. Thus, it partakes the nature of a petition for declaratory relief over which the Court has only appellate, not original, jurisdiction.
No comments:
Post a Comment