Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    265 - Cruz v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Maria Lourdes Dator
    This case discusses the doctrine that certiorari cases must be filed within 3 months of the complained act. The same rule should apply to mandamus cases. It summarizes that a teacher's position and salary were reclassified, and she appealed to the Civil Service Commission. Two years later, the Commission granted her appeal but the Department of Budget and Management denied the request, saying the Commission had no jurisdiction. When she filed for mandamus two years after that, the court denied it, finding the filing was unreasonably delayed and she failed to properly serve orders or seek reconsideration in a timely manner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    265 - Cruz v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Maria Lourdes Dator
    19 views1 page
    This case discusses the doctrine that certiorari cases must be filed within 3 months of the complained act. The same rule should apply to mandamus cases. It summarizes that a teacher's position and salary were reclassified, and she appealed to the Civil Service Commission. Two years later, the Commission granted her appeal but the Department of Budget and Management denied the request, saying the Commission had no jurisdiction. When she filed for mandamus two years after that, the court denied it, finding the filing was unreasonably delayed and she failed to properly serve orders or seek reconsideration in a timely manner.

    Original Description:

    Cruz v. CA

    Original Title

    265_Cruz v. CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the doctrine that certiorari cases must be filed within 3 months of the complained act. The same rule should apply to mandamus cases. It summarizes that a teacher's position and salary were reclassified, and she appealed to the Civil Service Commission. Two years later, the Commission granted her appeal but the Department of Budget and Management denied the request, saying the Commission had no jurisdiction. When she filed for mandamus two years after that, the court denied it, finding the filing was unreasonably delayed and she failed to properly serve orders or seek reconsideration in a timely manner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views1 page

    265 - Cruz v. CA

    Uploaded by

    Maria Lourdes Dator
    This case discusses the doctrine that certiorari cases must be filed within 3 months of the complained act. The same rule should apply to mandamus cases. It summarizes that a teacher's position and salary were reclassified, and she appealed to the Civil Service Commission. Two years later, the Commission granted her appeal but the Department of Budget and Management denied the request, saying the Commission had no jurisdiction. When she filed for mandamus two years after that, the court denied it, finding the filing was unreasonably delayed and she failed to properly serve orders or seek reconsideration in a timely manner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Cruz v.

    CA (1996)

    Doctrine:
    In certiorari cases, the definitive rule now is that such reasonable time is within three months
    from the commission of the complained act. The same rule should apply to mandamus cases.

    Summary:
    Executive Order No. 189 took effect placing all secondary school teachers under the
    administrative supervision and control of the DECS and making their salaries and cost of living
    allowance payable by the national government. Consequently, petitioner Cruz’s position was
    reclassified and her salary was reduced. Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission
    Merit Systems Protection Board (CSC-MSPB), praying for an upgrading of her position and
    monthly salary. Exactly two years from the effectivity of the nationalization program, the Salary
    Standardization Law took effect. MSPB then rendered a Decision granting the appeal of
    petitioner Cruz. MSPB issued an Order, re the upgrading of the position of Cruz and directed
    that Cruz be paid her corresponding salary. DECS-NCR requested from the DBM the issuance of
    a supplemental Position Allocation List (PAL) of the school employing petitioner to reflect her
    reclassified position. DBM Undersecretary denied the request on the ground that the MSPB
    has no jurisdiction to reclassify petitioner's position from Guidance Counselor III, SG-12 to
    Guidance Services Specialist II, SG16. Upon motion by Cruz, MSPB issued an order of execution
    directing the DECS and the DBM to implement its Decision immediately upon notice. Petitioner
    filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for mandamus praying that respondents be directed
    to enforce and comply with the MPSB Decision and Order. The Court of Appeals denied the
    petition ruling that the "DBM has the sole power and discretion to administer the compensation
    and position classification system of the national government. The CSC-MSPB, in ultimately
    classifying the position and compensation of petitioner, encroached upon the authority of the
    DBM".

    Issues: W/N CA erred in refusing to issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that it is the DMB
    which has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. NO
    W/N CA erred in refusing to compel the other respondents from complying with a final and
    executory decision of the CSC-MSPB.

    Ruling: No. Petitioner's motion for execution of the MSPB decision was a reaction to the DBM's
    letter which denied the request for the issuance of a Supplemental Position Allocation List (PAL)
    to reflect the MSPB's reclassification of the petitioner's position from Guidance Counselor III,
    SG-12, to Guidance Services Specialist II, SG-16. On the other hand, the MSPB's order granting
    the petitioner's motion for execution, was the MSPB's reply to the DBM's rejection of the MSPB's
    assumption of jurisdiction over the reclassification of the petitioner's position. The pleadings,
    however, fail to disclose that the order of execution was actually served on the respondents. No
    attempt was made to serve it, and the petitioner likewise did not move for its service before she
    filed the said action.

    Moreover, against the refusal of the DBM, handed down ten months before the order of
    execution was issued, the petitioner did not even file a motion for reconsideration nor take any
    further action to ventilate her grievance with an appropriate court or instrumentality of the
    Government. Her petition for mandamus filed only after more than two years, was, in reality,
    the first resort to judicial action against such refusal. Although Rule 65 does not specify any
    period for the filing of a petition for certiorari and mandamus, it must, nevertheless, be filed
    within a reasonable time. The unreasonable delay in the filing of the petitioner's mandamus suit
    unerringly negates any claim that the application for the said extraordinary remedy was the
    most expeditious and speedy available to the petitioner.

    You might also like