EN BANC
[G.R. No. 168613. November 12, 2013.]
ATTY. MA. ROSARIO MANALANG-DEMIGILLO, petitioner, vs. TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS, respondents.
[G.R. No. 185571. November 12, 2013.]
TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. ATTY. MA. ROSARIO MANALANG-DEMIGILLO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated NOVEMBER 12, 2013, which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 168613 — (ATTY. MA. ROSARIO MANALANG-DEMIGILLO v. TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS) and 185571 (TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ATTY. MA. ROSARIO MANALANG-DEMIGILLO).
On March 5, 2013, we promulgated the decision denying the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 168613 while granting the petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 185571.
Atty. Ma. Rosario Manalang-Demigillo, the respondent in G.R. No. 185571, has filed a motion for reconsideration insisting that respondent Trade and Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines (TIDCORP) did not observe the pertinent rules for dropping her from the rolls, and that her dropping from the rolls had been rendered moot and academic by her reappointment by TIDCORP during the succeeding reorganizations in 2005 and 2008. She prays that the decision promulgated on March 5, 2013 be set aside, and that her dropping from the rolls be declared invalid.
The motion for reconsideration lacks merit. ITDHSE
Firstly, our decision exhaustively discussed the factual and legal grounds for upholding the validity of dropping Atty. Manalang-Demigillo from the rolls. There is no compelling reason to disturb our decision.
And, secondly, Atty. Manalang-Demigillo's reappointment during the 2005 and 2008 reorganizations did not render her dropping from the rolls moot and academic. In its comment, TIDCORP explained that the sole reason for reappointing her had been only to comply with Resolution No. 04-1092 issued on October 14, 2004 by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) declaring her dropping from the rolls invalid; that TIDCORP had then believed that the resolution was immediately executory notwithstanding its appeal in the Court of Appeals (CA); that the CA had then promulgated its decision on the appeal on November 28, 2008 whereby the CA also held that she had been invalidly dropped from the rolls; and that under such circumstances her reappointments in 2005 and 2008 had been made only in deference to the CSC resolution and the CA decision. However, our assailed decision meanwhile set aside the ruling of the CA, and, instead, declared her dropping from the rolls valid. Consequently, to consider her dropping from the rolls as having been mooted by her reappointments in 2005 and 2008 would be unfounded and unjustified.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the motion for reconsideration of Atty. Ma. Rosario Manalang-Demigillo in G.R. No. 185571." (adv5) ScCEIA
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court