8/19/2019 #7 and #40

1/2

Duty Free Philippines v. Rossano Mojica, GR No. 166365, 30 epte!"er #005, First Division, $nares%

antia&o1

Facts

• Mojica was an employee of Duty Free Philippines who was charged with neglect resulting to

considerable damage to or loss of materials, assets and properties of DFP;•  Hence, the discipline committee of Duty Free considered her resigned with forfeiture of all benefits

except salary and accrued leave credits;

• s a result a complaint for illegal dismissal with prayer of full bac! wages and reinstatement was filed

 by Mojica before the "#$%;

• &he #abor rbiter awarded the bac! wages including an order for reinstatement; this was, however,

reversed by "#$%;

• motion for reconsideration was li!ewise dismissed by "#$%;

• petition for %ertiorari under $ule '( was filed by Mojica before the %, which court granted the

reliefs prayed for; Duty Free petitioned before the )%;

'ssue

*+ hether the filing by Mojica of the complaint before the "#$% was proper -+ hat is the nature of DFP./+ hat is the tribunal clothed with jurisdiction to try civil service cases.

(el)

*+ "o, DFP being a government agency attached with D0&, complaints against it are not cogni1able by

 "#$%+ -

DFP was created under 2xecutive 0rder 3204 "o+ 5' on )eptember 5, *67' primarily to augment the

service facilities for tourists and to generate foreign exchange and revenue for the government+ 8n order 

for the government to exercise direct and effective control and regulation over the tax and duty free

shops, their establishment and operation was vested in the Ministry, now Department of &ourism

3D0&4, through its implementing arm, the Philippine &ourism uthority 3P&4+ ll the net profits from

the merchandising operations of the shops accrued to the D0&+

-+ 20 "o+ -6- or &he dministrative %ode of *679 empowered the %ivil )ervice %ommission to hear and

decide administrative cases instituted by or brought before it directly or on appeal, including contested

appointments, and review decisions and actions of its offices and of the agencies attached to it+

Claudio S. Yap vs. Thenamaris Ship’s Management and Intermare

Maritime Agencies, Inc., G.R. No. !"#$%, Ma& $', %'.

Petitioner Yap was employed on respondent’s vessel under a 12-month contract.

Upon fnding that he was illegally terminated, the Court o !ppeals "C!# awarded

petitioner salaries or three months as provided under $ection 1% o &epu'lic !ct (o.

)%*2 "&! )%*2#. +hile the case was pending in the $upreme Court, $ection 1% o &!

)%*2 was declared unconstitutional. n deciding to award petitioner his salaries or

1

2

1

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/may2011/179532.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/may2011/179532.htm

8/19/2019 #7 and #40

2/2

the entire unepired portion o his contract, the $upreme Court reected the

application o the operative act doctrine. !s an eception to the general rule, the

doctrine applies only as a matter o e/uity and air play. t recogni0es that the

eistence o a statute prior to a determination o unconstitutionality is an operative

act and may have conse/uences which cannot always 'e ignored. he doctrine is

applica'le when a declaration o unconstitutionality will impose an undue 'urden on

those who have relied on the invalid law. his case should not 'e included in the

aorementioned eception. !ter all, it was not the ault o petitioner that he lost his

 o' due to an act o illegal dismissal committed 'y respondents. o rule otherwise

would 'e ini/uitous to petitioner and other 3+s, and would, in e4ect, send a wrong

signal that principals5employers and recruitment5manning agencies may violate an

3+’s security o tenure which an employment contract em'odies and actually proft

rom such violation 'ased on an unconstitutional provision o law.

2