This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Gauged from the foregoing definitions, Daza cannot be said to be performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function in assessing TPC's business tax and/or effectively denying its protest as then Municipal Treasurer of Taguig. For this reason, Daza's actions are not the proper subjects of a Rule 65 petition for certiorari which is the appropriate remedy in cases where a the tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions acted without or in grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in law.[19] Narrow in scope and inflexible in character,[20] certiorari is an extraordinary remedy designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.[21] It is likewise considered mutually exclusive with appeal[22] like the one provided by Article 195 of the Local Government Code for a local treasurer's denial of or inaction on a protest. | |||||
|
2010-06-22 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It doesn't help petitioner's cause any that Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756, in relation to Section 3 of Executive Order No. 877, was further amended by Republic Act No. 6758,[33] otherwise known as the Compensation and Classification Act of 1989. Mandated under Article IX B, Section 5[34] of the Constitution,[35] Section 4[36] of Republic Act No. 6758 specifically extends its coverage to government owned and controlled corporations like petitioner. With this Court's ruling in Philippine International Trading Corporation v. Commission on Audit[37] to the effect that petitioner is included in the coverage of Republic Act No. 6758, it is evidently no longer exempted from OCPC rules and regulations, in keeping with said law's intent to do away with multiple allowances and other incentive packages as well as the resultant differences in compensation among government personnel. | |||||