Caranto v. Bureau of Immigration

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248194. December 9, 2020.]

MARY ANN Q. CARANTO, petitioner,vs. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION, COMMISSIONER RONALDO A. GERON, SECRETARY OF JUSTICE EMMANUEL L. CAPARAS, and ATTY. GREGORIO G. SADIASA, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 9, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248194 (Mary Ann Q. Caranto v. Bureau of Immigration, Commissioner Ronaldo A. Geron, Secretary of Justice Emmanuel L. Caparas, and Atty. Gregorio G. Sadiasa). — The Court resolves to:

(1) GRANT petitioner's first and second motions for extension totaling thirty (30) days from October 19, 2020 within which to file a reply to the comment of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on the petition for review on certiorari, and NOTE the request for a copy of the OSG's comment, with query respecting the ponente of the instant case; and

(2) NOTE:

(a) the letter dated October 26, 2020, filed by Atty. Aguinaldo S. Sepnio, counsel for petitioner, requesting a copy of the OSG's comment on the petition for him to file the required reply to the Resolution dated August 26, 2020; and

(b) petitioner's said reply dated November 17, 2020.

The Court of Appeals (CA) in its Decision 1 in CA-G.R. SP No. 149336 dated June 22, 2018, correctly held that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) which ruled in favor of Mary Ann Q. Caranto (petitioner) has no jurisdiction over her Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus in Civil Case No. 16-135997.

Petitioner, being an employee of the Bureau of Immigration is covered by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which has jurisdiction over all employees of Government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. 2 It is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service. 3 Disciplinary cases, and cases involving "personnel actions" affecting employees in the civil service — including "appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, re-employment, detail, reassignment, demotion and separation," and of course, employment status and qualification standards — are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC. 4

In the case of Province of Zamboanga Del Norte v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that:

"x x x before a party is allowed to seek the intervention of the courts, it is a pre-condition that he avail himself of all administrative processes afforded him. Hence, if a remedy within the administrative machinery can be resorted to by giving the administrative officer every opportunity to decide on a matter that comes within his jurisdiction, then such remedy must be exhausted first before the court's power of judicial review can be sought. The premature resort to the court is fatal to one's cause of action." 5

It is true that the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies has certain exceptions as embodied in various cases. 6 After a careful study of the case, the Court finds that petitioner failed to substantiate her allegations. She failed to show that the present case falls under any of the exceptions. Her petition before the RTC was in essence a protest against respondents' act of reassigning her. However, official functions are presumed to be regular unless proven otherwise. 7 Mere allegation of arbitrariness will not suffice to vest in the RTC the power that has been specifically granted by law to special government agencies. 8 Thus, the CA correctly ruled that petitioner's Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus before the RTC was beyond the latter's competence.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 22, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 149336 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED." (LEONEN, J., recused himself from the case due to his close relationship with a party; ZALAMEDA, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated December 2, 2020).

By authority of the Court:

MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 59-69; penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.

2.Corsiga v. Judge Defensor, 439 Phil. 875, 883 (2002).

3.Id.

4.Dr. Mantala v. Judge Salvador, 283 Phil. 168, 172 (1992).

5. 396 Phil. 709, 717 (2000).

6.Id. at 718.

7.Corsiga v. Judge Defensor, supra at 886.

8.Province of Zamboanga Del Norte v. Court of Appeals, supra at 719.