PROMULGATED: April 14, 1978 2. W/N the SC can decide on the merits of the case PONENTE: Barredo (note: not an express issue in the case, but might PETITIONER: Lualhati L. Lina be the relevant issue for recits) RESPONDENT: Hon. Amante Purisima, presiding judge of CFI Manila; Philippine Veterans Bank, HELD/RATIO: Esteban Cabanos 1. NO - The SC has always deemed General Order No. 3 RELATED PROVISION/S: and its amendments to be inoperative. It is for the Art. VIII. Sec. 5 (in relation to the power of the Court to decide whether or not they may take Supreme Court to disregard its own rules) cognizance of any case involving the validity of executive acts. FACTS: 1. Lina is a bookkeeper at the Philippine Veterans 2. YES Bank. She is dismissed from work for being - Ordinarily, the Court would direct the petitioners notoriously undesirable pursuant to LOI 14 and case to be tried and decided by respondent judge 19-A. on the merits. 2. She files a petition for mandamus (to restore her to - But all the facts are available for the Court itself to position in bank) with the CFI Manila, but her decide on the merits. petition is dismissed. - When a case is elevated to the Court for the 3. Reason for dismissal: General Order No. 3 (1972) correction of a procedural error and it has been removes the issue of the validity or legality of found that there was indeed a mistake, and all the presidential decrees, orders, or acts from the facts are available for the Court to decide on the jurisdiction of the judiciary. Because Linas merits, in the interests of justice, the Court may at dismissal was pursuant to an LOI, the validity or its option dispense with the usual procedure and legality of said act is beyond the power of the court resolve the issue on its own. Otherwise, expenses to review. would only increase and justice would be uselessly delayed. KIND OF CASE/PETITION: Petition to for certiorari and mandamus to annul the orders of dismissal issued RULING: by respondent judge and to command the said During the pendency of the case, respondents respondent to decide the case on the merits reinstated petitioner and paid her backwages plus costs of the suit (but Lina still didnt report for work). ISSUES: Respondent judges order set aside and Lina ordered to go back to work on pain of losing her job.