7/18/2019 Emmanuel de Castro v. Emerson Carlos

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/emmanuel-de-castro-v-emerson-carlos 1/2

Emmanuel De Castro v. Emerson CarlosG.R. No. 194994, April 16, 2013

 This is a Petition for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto under Rule 66 led

de Castro seeking to oust Carlos from the position of assistant general manager for

operations (AGM! of the MM"A#

FAC!

$mmanuel de Castro was appointed %& then PGMA as AGM on 'ul& )* ++)#

n 'ul& )* +,+* an -ce of the President (P! Memorandum Circular .o#

was issued which states that* “all non-Career Executive Service Ofcials

(non-CESO) occupying Career Executive Service (CES) positions in all

agencies o the executive branch shall remain...until October !" #$!$...%  n 'ul& /+* +,+* Cora0on Cru0 was designated as 1C of the -ce of the

AGM#

"e Castro was then reassigned to the 2egal and 2egislati3e A4airs -ce# Theser3ice 3ehicle and the o-ce space pre3iousl& assigned to him were

withdrawn and assigned to other emplo&ees# n .o3em%er * +,+* $merson Carlos was designated as the 1C of the

-ce of the AGM#  Thereafter* the name of $mmanuel de Castro was stricken o4 the MM"A

pa&roll* and he was no longer paid his salar& %eginning .o3em%er +,+#

"e Castro sought a clarication from the Career $5ecuti3e er3ice 7oard

(C$7! as to the proper classication of the position of AGM# According to the C$7* the position of AGM had not &et %een classied and

could not %e considered as %elonging to C$# 1n sum* de Castro was not

co3ered %& the P Memorandum Circular .os# , and # "e Castro sent a letter to the MM"A demanding pa&ment of his salar& and

reinstatement in the monthl& pa&roll# 8owe3er* no response was o%tained#

 Thereafter* he made a formal demand for his reinstatement as AGM through

a letter addressed to the -ce of the President# 8owe3er* President Aquino appointed $merson Carlos as the new AGM of 

the MM"A# 8ence* this instant petition#

"!!#E!

&roce'ural ssue *O+ the petition must be 'ismisse' or ailing to a'here to the

'octrine o hierarchy o courts by going 'irect recourse to the Supreme Court.

7/18/2019 Emmanuel de Castro v. Emerson Carlos

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/emmanuel-de-castro-v-emerson-carlos 2/2

$E%D

 &E!.  Petitioner9s e5cuses are not special and important circumstances that would

allow a direct recourse to the upreme Court# Mere speculation and dou%t to the

e5ercise of the :udicial discretion of the lower courts are not and cannot %e 3alid

 :ustications to hurdle the hierarch& of courts# 8ence* the petition must %edismissed#

&etitioner,s excuses

...petitioner submits that a 'irect recourse to the SC is arrante' by the

urgent 'eman's o public interest" particularly the veritable nee' or stability in the

civil service an' the protection o the right s o civil servants. oreover" consi'ering

that no other than the &resi'ent o the &hilippines is the appointing authority"

 petitioner 'oubts i a trial court /u'ge or an appellate court /ustice" ith prospect o 

 promotion in the /u'iciary oul' be illing to go against0 the presi'ential

appointment.

Although ec ;(,! of Article <111 of the ,)=> Constitution e5plicitl& pro3ides

that the upreme Court has original :urisdiction o3er petitions for certiorari*

prohi%ition* mandamus* quo warranto* and ha%eas corpus* the :urisdiction of the C

is not e5clusi3e %ut is concurrent with that of the CA and RTC and does not gi3e

petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum# The hierarch& of courts

must %e strictl& o%ser3ed#

ettled is the rule that ?the upreme Court is a court of last resort and must

so remain if it is to satisfactoril& perform the functions assigned to it %& the

fundamental charter and immemorial tradition#@ A disregard of the doctrine of 

hierarch& of courts warrants* as a rule* the outright dismissal of a petition#

A direct in3ocation of the upreme Court9s :urisdiction is allowed onl& when

there are special and important reasons that are clearl& and specicall& set forth in

a petition#