Professional Documents
Culture Documents
April 15, 2005 | Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. | Special Civil Action in the SC | Standing to Challenge
PETITIONER: Eufemio Domingo, Celso Gangan, Pacasio Banaria, Sofronio Ursal, Alberto cruz, Maria
Matib, Rachel Pacpaco, Angelo Sanchez, Sherwin Sip-an
RESPONDENT: Hon. Guillermo Carague, in his capacity as Chairman of Commission on Audit, Hon.
Emmanuel Dalman and Hon. Raul Flores, in their capacities as Commissioners of Commission on Audit
SUMMARY: Petitioners consisted of retired and incumbent officers and members of Commission on Audit.
They question the legality of the Organizational Restructuring Plan as it unceremoniously divested certain
employees of their positions and caused them financial prejudice. They claim to have standing as taxpayers and
because the subject matter is of transcendental importance. SC ruled that petitioners have no standing as they
failed to show any present substantial interest in the outcome of the case.
DOCTRINE: He who is directly affected and whose interest is immediate and substantial has the standing to
sue. Thus, a party must show a personal stake in the outcome of the case or an injury to himself that can be
redressed by a favorable decision in order to warrant an invocation of the courts jurisdiction.
FACTS:
Petitioners are retired Chairmen and retired
Commissioners and incumbent officers or employees
of Commission on Audit. They question the legality
of Resolution No. 2002-05 of the COA providing for
Organizational Restructuring Plan. They allege that it
is void as it does not have an enabling law
authorizing COA to undertake the same.
Some of the petitioners claim that they were
unceremoniously divested of their designations/ranks
as Unit Head, Team Supervisor, and Team Leader
upon implementation of the COA Organizational
Restructuring Plan without just cause and without
due process, in violation of Civil Service Law. Also,
they were deprived of their respective Representation
and Transportation Allowance (RATA) causing them
financial prejudice.
ISSUE/S:
1.
RATIO:
Petitioners failed to show any present substantial
interest in the outcome of the case. Nor may
petitioners claim that as taxpayers, they have legal
standing since nowhere in their petition do they claim
that public fundsarebeingspentinviolationoflaw
orthatthereisamisapplicationofthetaxpayers
money.
Withregardtosomepetitionersclaimthattheywere
unceremoniouslydivestedoftheirprevious
designationsandweredeniedtransportation
allowance,therewasnodemotionasdefinedunder
Section 11, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of
1987. A demotion is the movement from one position
to another involving the issuance of an appointment
with diminution in duties, responsibilities, status, or
rank which may or may not involve reduction in
salary.