WHEREFORE, the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), through its responsible officials, is hereby ORDERED, for the last time, to effect FORTHWITH the reinstatement of Rufino G. Aumentado, Jr. according to the tenor of CSC Resolution No. 98-1996 dated July 27, 1998. It is likewise ORDERED that it directly furnish the Commission with its compliance report as soon as possible. Be forewarned that failure to do so shall constrain the Commission to take punitive actions, within the bounds of law, against the accountable officials of PAGCOR. Finally, it is understood that the Commission shall no longer entertain any more representation from PAGCOR insofar as it concerns the instant case.
Civil Service Commission - National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) is hereby ordered to closely monitor the implementation of this Resolution and for its Regional Director to submit her report within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof.9
FOR THE SOLE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY THREE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY AND 40/100 (P843,840.41) [sic] receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, I, RUFINO G. AUMENTADO, JR. of 56-A Rizal Avenue Extension, Basak, Mambaling, Cebu City, do hereby waive, quit, renounce, release and forever discharge the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), with address at 1330 PAGCOR House, Roxas Blvd., Ermita, Manila, and its employees, from any and all actions, claims, demands and rights of action whatsoever, including my right to reinstatement, arising out of my previous employment thereon, or in connection with CSC Resolution No. 981996 of July 27, 1998 of which I am fully compensated.
This release may be pleaded as a bar to any criminal, civil or administrative suit or proceeding which may be taken or have been taken in connection with the aforementioned employment and other circumstances pertaining thereto.
It is further agreed that PAGCOR is hereby released from all claims, demands and rights of action from the undersigned.10
WHEREFORE, the motion of the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation to set aside CSC Resolution No. 02-0773, dated June 26, 2002, is hereby DENIED. There being no more legal impediment, Rufino G. Aumentado, Jr. should now be reinstated forthwith to his former position, or, if the same be legally untenable, to any equivalent position. The payment made to him in consonance with the quitclaim shall be deemed to be an advance of his back salaries, the amount of which should be reckoned from the time of his illegal dismissal up to the date of his actual reinstatement, but not to exceed five (5) years.12
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that its jurisdiction under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is limited only to JUDGMENTS and FINAL ORDERS of the Civil Service Commission?
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that CSC Resolution No. 02-0773 dated May 30, 2002, CSC Resolution No. 03-0082 dated January 20, 2003, [and] CSC Resolution No. 04-0395 dated April 5, 2004, are merely orders for execution thus not susceptible to appeal?14
SECTION 1. Scope. - This Rule shall apply to appeals from judgments or final orders of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards, judgments, final orders or resolutions of or authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among these agencies are the Civil Service Commission, x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 1. Subject of Appeal. - An appeal may be taken from a judgment or final order that completely disposes of the case, or of a particular matter therein when declared by these Rules to be appealable.
No appeal may be taken from:
a) An order denying a motion for new trial or reconsideration;
b) An order denying a petition for relief or any similar motion seeking relief from judgment;
c) An interlocutory order;
d) An order disallowing or dismissing an appeal;
e) An order denying a motion to set aside a judgment by consent, confession or compromise on the ground of fraud, mistake, duress, or any other ground vitiating consent;
f) An order of execution;
g) A judgment or final order for or against one or more of several parties or in separate claims, counterclaims, cross-claims and third-party complaints, while the main case is pending, unless the court allows an appeal therefrom; and
h) An order dismissing an action without prejudice.
In all the above instances where the judgment or final order is not appealable, the aggrieved party may file an appropriate special civil action under Rule 65. (Emphasis supplied)
1. The writ of execution varies the judgment;
2. There has been a change in the situation of the parties making execution inequitable or unjust;
3. Execution is sought to be enforced against property exempt from execution;
4. It appears that the controversy has been submitted to the judgment of the court;
5. The terms of the judgment are not clear enough and there remains room for interpretation thereof; or
6. It appears that the writ of execution has been improvidently issued, or that it is defective in substance, or issued against the wrong party, or that the judgment debt has been paid or otherwise satisfied, or the writ issued without authority.16
1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2 Rollo, pp. 158-166. Penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., with Associate Justices Eliezer R. De Los Santos and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring.
3 Id. at 174.
4 Id. at 69-76. Penned by J. Waldemar V. Valmores, with Chairman Karina Constantino-David and Commissioner Jose F. Erestain, Jr., concurring.
5 Id. at 219.
6 Id. at 220.
7 Id. at 221-222.
8 Id. at 52-53. Penned by J. Waldemar V. Valmores, with Chairman Karina Constantino-David and Commissioner Jose F. Erestain, Jr., concurring.
9 Id. at 53.
10 Id. at 43.
11 Id. at 54-59.
12 Id. at 76.
13 Id. at 82-89. Penned by by J. Waldemar V. Valmores, with Chairman Karina Constantino-David and Commissioner Cesar D. Buenaflor, concurring.
14 Id. at 238.
15 Buñag v. Court of Appeals, 363 Phil. 216 (1999); Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, 361 Phil. 294 (1999); Imperial Insurance v. De Los Angeles, 197 Phil. 23 (1982); Corpus v. Alikpala, 130 Phil. 88 (1968).
16 Philippine Economic Zone Authority v. Borreta, G.R. No. 142669, 15 March 2006, 484 SCRA 664, 670 citing Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, supra.
17 Reburiano v. Court of Appeals, supra note 15.
18 Also attached to the rollo is a Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman dated 26 February 2002 dismissing the administrative complaint filed by respondent against Atty. Carlos R. Bautista, Jr. for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The 26 February 2002 Decision also declared that respondent validly waived his right to reinstatement. (Rollo, pp. 44-51. The Decision was penned by Graft Investigation Officer I Vivian H. Magsino and approved by Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto.)