Article IX (B), Section
2. (1) The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned
or controlled corporations with original charters. (2) Appointments in the
civil service shall be made only according to merit and fitness to be
determined, as far as practicable, and, except to positions which are
policy-determining, primarily confidential, or highly technical, by competitive
examination. (3) No officer or employee of the civil service shall be removed
or suspended except for cause provided by law. (4) No officer or employee in
the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering
or partisan political campaign. (5) The right to self-organization shall not be
denied to government employees. (6) Temporary employees of the Government shall
be given such protection as may be provided by law.
Facts:
Petitioner files for certiorari
to revoke the order of respondent Judge Yatco for cancelling his previous order
for execution on the parcel of land owned by the petitioner. The said parcel of
land is being occupied by Fernando Mendoñez with an agreement to pay in
installment the said land to the petitioners and that he shall voluntarily
vacate the land and the payments he previously made shall be forfeited in favor
of the plaintiff. A civil case was filed by the petitioner against Mendoñez for
failure to pay as per agreement of both parties. Petitioner later filed a
motion for execution to take the land back. Defendant Mendoñez moved for
postponement to give both parties sufficient time to come to an agreement which
was allowed by the respondent judge. It was settled by both parties that Mendoñez
will secure a GSIS loan however when he was ready to make the payment the
petitioner refused to abide with their agreement and now asking for a higher
amount of money for payment. Finding no justification on the issuance of the
writ of execution, Judge Yatco quashed said order hence this petition for
certiorari based on lack of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent
judge acted in lack of jurisdiction or abuse of discretion
RULING:
The court held that any judge has
the jurisdiction to quash any writ of execution issued by him especially when
it was improvidently issued. There is no abuse of discretion by the judge since
the defendant made an opposition and proved that there is subsequent verbal
agreement that amended the compromise hence the execution cannot be validly
decreed without a hearing. The consequent ability of the defendant to meet his
obligations by securing a GSIS loan also justifies the court’s refusal to eject
him from the premises by an execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment