02 PAGCOR vs AUGMENTADO

GR No. 173634 July 22, 2010

Facts:
 Respondent Rufino G. Aumentado, Jr. (respondent) was employed by PAGCOR as a table
supervisor. Subsequently, PAGCOR dismissed respondent from the service. Aggrieved,
respondent filed a complaint for illegal dismissal before the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
 In CSC Resolution No. 98-1996 dated 27 July 1998, the CSC ruled that respondent was
illegally terminated from the service and ordered respondents reinstatement and the
payment of his backwages.
 Respondent then filed for his immediate reinstatement. Through CSC Resolution No. 02-
0773, the CSC granted respondents motion, ordering the reinstatement of the respondent.
 Note: However, on 4 April 2001, PAGCOR and respondent entered into an amicable
settlement and, for monetary consideration of P843,840.41. It also indicated that PAGCOR
is hereby released from all claims, demands and rights of action from respondent
Augmentado. (Thus, a quitclaim was
 PAGCOR filed with the CSC a Manifestation of Quitclaim. PAGCOR sought the
reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 02-0773 on the basis of the quitclaim executed by
respondent. This was denied by the CSC.
 PAGCOR appealed to the CA. The CA ruled in favor of CSC. The CA ruled that PAGCOR’s
appeal was directed against the resolution of CSC which was in relation to a decision that
has become final and executory, which is not under the jurisdiction of th CA. Thus, the
petition.

Issue:
(1) Whether or not the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court is
limited only to JUDGMENTS and FINAL ORDERS of the Civil Service Commission?
(2) Whether or not the CSC Resolutions are merely orders for execution and are thus not
susceptible for appeal

Held:
(1) NO.
(2) Yes. Orders of execution are not susceptible for appeal. However, there are exceptions. .

Ruling:
(1) Section 1, Rule 43 of the Rules provides:
“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”

It is clear from the Rules that the Court of Appeals can entertain appeals from awards,
judgments, final orders or resolutions of the CSC.
 (2) The general rule is that an order of execution is not appealable; otherwise, a case would
never end. However, there are exceptions to this rule, namely:
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

The execution of a quitclaim after a decision has become final and executory is a supervening
event which could affect the execution of the decision. The quitclaim between PAGCOR and
respondent brought about a change in their situation because the validity of the quitclaim would
determine whether