CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. records from July 22, 1947 to July 22, 1954.

MAGOYAG (2015) The said request was then forwarded to the

CSC-National Capital Region (NCR) and,
TOPIC Administrative agencies – thereafter, the request was endorsed to the
Judicial Function CSC.
DOCTRINE Quasi-judicial function is a
term which applies to the In support of his request, respondent
action, discretion, etc. of submitted copies of his certificate of live
public administrative
birth issued by the National Statistics Office
officers or bodies, who are
required to investigate facts (NSO), together with the November 20,
or ascertain the existence 2007 Decision of the RTC in the case
of facts, hold hearings, and entitled, "In the Matter of the Correction of
draw conclusions from Date of Birth Madlawi B. Magoyag.
them as a basis for their
official action and to Respondent claims that the discrepancy in
exercise discretion of a his date of birth arose when he applied for
judicial nature. employment with Amanah Bank in 1974
when he mistakenly placed 1947 instead of
It is true that only those
1954 as his year of birth in the application
awards, judgments, final
orders or resolutions of a form. Thus, according to him, such wrong
quasi-judicial agency or date appeared in the records of the GSIS
body in the exercise of its and was maintained in the entire length of
quasi-judicial functions are his stay in the government.
the subjects of an appeal
under Rule 43 of the Rules Petitioner CSC denied respondent's request
of Court. However, in the on the ground that the RTC decision
present case, petitioner rendered on November 20, 2007 was not
maintains that the yet final and executory.
resolutions it issued were
mere responses to the
respondent's request for Respondent filed a motion for
the correction of his date of reconsideration and attached to it was the
birth. However, petitioner Certificate of Finality of Judgment issued by
admits that in issuing those the RTC. On March 16, 2010, the CSC, in
resolutions, it exercised its its Resolution No. 100491, denied the said
discretion. motion,

PERALTA, J. Aggrieved, respondent filed a Petition for

Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of
I.FACTS Court with the CA and the latter granted the
petition and ordered the CSC to comply with
Respondent filed with the RTC of Lanao del the Decision of the RTC.
Sur a petition for correction of his date of
birth from July 22, 1947 to July 22, 1954. The CSC arguments:
On November 20, 2007, the RTC granted
the said petition. Petitioner argues that the resolutions it
issued regarding the request of the
On February 6, 2008, respondent, who was respondent for the correction of his date of
then the Deputy Collector of the Bureau of birth are mere responses to the said
Customs in Cagayan de Oro City requested request and that although discretion was
the CSC Regional Office to correct his date exercised by petitioner in denying the
of birth appearing in his employment request, said exercise of discretion
cannot be said to be judicial in nature officers or bodies, who are required to
because there were no investigations or investigate facts or ascertain the
hearings held to determine or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, and
facts. Thus, according to the petitioner, the draw conclusions from them as a basis
for their official action and to exercise
issuance of those resolutions was not
discretion of a judicial nature.
the result of its quasi-judicial function,
but of its administrative function only. As
It is true that only those awards, judgments,
such, petitioner insists, respondent erred in
final orders or resolutions of a quasi-judicial
resorting to Rule 43 of the Rules of Court
agency or body in the exercise of its quasi-
when he elevated the case to the CA.
judicial functions are the subjects of an
Petitioner further reiterates that only those
appeal under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
judgments, final orders or resolutions issued
However, in the present case, petitioner
in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions
maintains that the resolutions it issued were
may be the subject of a petition for review
mere responses to the respondent's request
under Rule 43.
for the correction of his date of birth.
However, petitioner admits that in issuing
those resolutions, it exercised its discretion:
II.ISSUE
“..While discretion was exercised by
WON the resolution issued by the CSC are petitioner in denying such request by
reviewable under Rule 43 of the Rules of respondent, said exercise of discretion
Court - YES cannot be said to be of judicial nature. In
acting on the request, no investigations
or hearings were held to ascertain or
III.RATIO determine the facts..”

CSC petition is denied. What makes it more unfortunate is that

petitioner even admits on not having any
This Court rules that the resolutions investigations or hearings before issuing
issued by petitioner are not mere such resolutions. The first resolution
responses to a request but are actually denying the request was understandable
quasi-judicial actions because the result since petitioner was not able to submit a
of those resolutions is the denial of a certificate or proof of the finality of the
right of the respondent as conferred by RTC's judgment, but the second resolution
the court. denying the motion for reconsideration was
unforgivable since the respondent was
Rule 43 of the Rules of Court under which already able to cure the defect of its first
respondent filed his petition before the CA request by attaching the Certificate of
applies to awards, judgments, final orders or Finality of Judgment issued by the RTC.
resolutions of or authorized by any quasi- Thus, by denying respondent's request,
judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi- petitioner was not merely exercising an
judicial functions: administrative function but had already
adjudicated on the matter. Therefore, the
An agency is said to be exercising resort to Rule 43 was proper.
judicial function where [it] has the power
to determine what the law is and what In denying respondent's request, petitioner
the legal rights of the parties are, and emphasized that it did not give weight to the
then undertakes to determine these certified photocopies of respondent's school
questions and adjudicate upon the rights records which he submitted to support his
of the parties. Quasi-judicial function is a
request because according to the Official
term which applies to the action,
discretion, etc. of public administrative Transcript of Records issued by the Office
of the University Registrar of Liceo de
Cagayan University, respondent graduated
from college in November 1967 which is
manifestly improbable if respondent's claim
that he was born on July 22, 1954 is true
because it would mean that he graduated
from college at the age of thirteen (13), from
high school at nine (9), and from elementary
at five (5). Such assumption should have
merited an investigation and hearing if
petitioner deemed such scenario as
improbable because there are cases where
such an instance is possible.

It must be remembered that, a petition for

correction is an action in rem, an action
against a thing and not against a person. It
is the publication of such notice that brings
in the whole world as a party in the case
and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear
and decide it. As such, petitioner is now
legally bound to acknowledge and give
effect to the judgment of the RTC.

However, petitioner totally disregarded the

finality of the RTC's judgment. This doctrine
of finality of judgment is grounded on
fundamental considerations of public policy
and sound practice. In fact, nothing is more
settled in law than that once a judgment
attains finality it thereby becomes
immutable and unalterable.

IV.DISPOSITIVE

CA DECISION IS AFFIRMED.