Eugenio vs.

Civil Service Commission

G.R. No. 115863. March 31, 1995.*

Facts:

Petitioner is the Deputy Director of the Philippine Nuclear Research Institute. She
applied for a Career Executive Service (CES) Eligibility and a CESO rank. On
August 2, 1993, she was given a CES eligibility and thereafter, was recommended to
the President for a CESO rank by the Career Executive Service Board.

Subsequently, the respondent CSC passed a Resolution which abolished the Career
Executive Service Board impeding the appointment of the petitioner as Civil Service
Officer, Rank IV.

Issue:

WON the CSC has the power to abolish the Career Executive Service Board.

Held:

No.The controlling fact is that the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) was
created by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1 on September 1, 19744 which adopted
the Integrated Reorganization Plan. It cannot be disputed, therefore, that as the
CESB was created by law, it can only be abolished by the legislature. This follows an
unbroken stream of rulings that the creation and abolition of public offices is
primarily a legislative function.

Although the Commission has the power to reorganize offices, such is limited to
those under its control as enumerated Section 16 Chapter 3, Subtitle A, Title I,
Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987. From its inception, the CESB was
intended to be an autonomous entity, albeit administratively attached to respondent
the Commission.
Ley son, Jr. vs. Office of the Ombudsman

G.R. No. 134990. April 27, 2000.*

Facts:

Petitioner Leyson charged respondent Tirso Antiporda, Chairman of UCPB and

CIIF Oil Mills together with Oscar Torralba, President CIIF, with the violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act also before the Ombudsman anchored on
the respondents alleged breach of contract, manipulation, and falsification of
documents, among others.

The public respondent dismissed the complaint based on its finding that the case is
a simple case of breach of contract with damages which should have been filed in the
regular court. Besides, the parties are private corporations to which the office has
no jurisdiction.

Issue:

Whether or not CIIF companies are GOCCs under the jurisdiction of the public
respondent.

Held:

No. Government owned or controlled corporation as stated in par. (13), Sec. 2,

Introductory Provisions of the Administrative Code of 1987, i.e., any agency
organized as a stock or non-stock corporation vested with functions relating to
public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature, and owned by the
Government directly or through its instrumentalities either wholly, or, where
applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent of at least fifty-one (51)
percent of its capital stock. The definition mentions three (3) requisites, namely:

1. Any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation;

2. Vested with functions relating to public needs whether governmental or
proprietary in nature; and,
3. Owned by the Government directly or through its instrumentalities either
wholly, or, where applicable as in the case of stock corporations, to the extent
of at least fifty-one (51) percent of its capital stock.

In this case, the shares of stock in Legaspi Oil Corporation(44.10%) is below 51%.
The Court thus concludes that the CIIF companies are, as found by public
respondent, private corporations not within the scope of its jurisdiction.

People vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. Nos. 147706-07. February 16, 2005.*

Facts:

Two separate information for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, otherwise known
as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, were filed with the Sandiganbayan
against Efren L. Alas. The charges emanated from the alleged anomalous
advertising contracts entered into by Alas, in his capacity as President and Chief
Operating Officer of the Philippine Postal Savings Bank (PPSB), with Bagong
Buhay Publishing Company which purportedly caused damage and prejudice to the
government.

Alas filed a motion to quash the information for lack of jurisdiction

Issue:

Does the Sandiganbayan have jurisdiction over presidents, directors or trustees, or

managers of government-owned or controlled corporations organized and
incorporated under the Corporation Code for purposes of the provisions of RA 3019,
otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act?
Held:

Yes. In Quimpo v. Tanodbayan,10 this Court, already mindful of the pertinent

provisions of the 1987 Constitution, ruled that the concerned officers of government-
owned or controlled corporations, whether created by special law or formed under
the Corporation Code, come under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan for
purposes of the provisions of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Section 2(13) of EO 2926 defines government-owned or controlled corporations as

referring to any agency organized as a stock or non-stock corporation vested with
functions relating to public needs whether governmental or proprietary in nature,
and owned by the government directly or indirectly or through its instrumentalities
either wholly, or where applicable as in the case of stock corporations to the extent
of at least 51% of its capital stock.

From the foregoing, PPSB fits the bill as a government-owned or controlled

corporation, and organized and incorporated under the Corporation Code as a
subsidiary of the Philippine Postal Corporation (PHILPOST). More than 99% of the
authorized capital stock of PPSB belongs to the government while the rest is
nominally held by its incorporators who are/were themselves officers of PHILPOST.