Back

[4/5] Violeta Aldovino, Et Al. Vs. Rafael Alunan Iii, Et Al.

[4/5] VIOLETA ALDOVINO, ALI ALIBASA, FELIX BALINO, DIONISIO BALLESTEROS, JOSE N. BALEIN, JR., FREDDIE CAUTON, JANE CORROS, ROBERTO CRUZ, TRINIDAD DACUMOS, ANGELITA DIMAPILIS, ANDREA ESTONILO, EFREN FONTANILLA, MARY PAZ FRIGILLANA, MANUEL HENSON, SAMUEL HIPOL, MERLENE IBALIO, MAGDALENA JAMILLA, ALEXANDER JUSTINIANI, ROMULO MIRADOR, JULIO MIRAVITE, DANTE NAGTALON, CLARITA NAMUCO, ALICIA ORBITA, ANGELITA PUCAN, MYRNA P. SALVADOR, LIBRADA TANTAY, and ARACELI J. DE VEYRA, petitioners, vs. SECRETARY RAFAEL ALUNAN III, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM and SECRETARY GUILLERMO M. CARAGUE, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, respondents. JOSEPHINE G. ANDAYA, ROSALINDA T. ATIENZA, JOSE M. BALDOVINO, JR., ASUNCION C. BRIONES, RIZALINA P. ESPIRITU, MARIBELLE A. GARCIA, ABDULIA T. LANDINGIN, FLORITA O. OCAMPO, ROLANDO SISON, LOURDES V. TAMAYO, and ROLANDO VALDEZ, intervenors. ERLINDA PIZA, ELEONOR SAGNIT, FIDEL SEVIDAL, CONCEPCION TIMARIO, ELOISA ALONZO, ANGELITO DELA CRUZ, ROLANDO C. CAGASCA, LYNIE ARCENAS, MARIA EMMA JASMIN, ALFONSO ANGELES, MACACUNA PANGANDAMAN, ROSALITA MAUNA, ROMEO PADILLA, ASCENSION PADILLA, CRISPULO PADILLA, VIRGILIO DEJERO, MEDARDO ILAO, ROSITA SOMERA, ARMANDO CRUZ, CATALINO DABU, FRANCISCO VILLARAIZ, NORMA JUMILLA, KENNEDY BASA, and ARMANDO MENDOZA, intervenors. ANICITA S. BALUYUT, ANTONINO D. EDRALIN, EVELYN A. ENRIQUEZ, MA. VICTORIA L. JACOBO, DANIEL M. MANAMTAM, JESSIE C. MANRIQUE, ENCARNACION T. RADAZA, and MARIO P. RUIVIVAR, intervenors. AMOR T. MEDINA and FELIX L. POLIQUIT, intervenors.

G.R. No. 102232 | 1994-03-09

DAVIDE, JR., J., dissenting:

I fully agree with the majority opinion that the separation from the service of petitioners and intervenors (save petitioners Samuel Hipol, Jane Corros, and Efren Fontanilla) was made pursuant to the office orders and memoranda declared void in Mandani vs. Gonzales (186 SCRA 108 [1990]). Said case and the subsequent consolidated cases of Abrogar vs. Garrucho, Jr. and Arnaldo vs. Garrucho, Jr. (G.R. Nos. 95773 and 96533, 6 August 1991) would have necessarily benefited petitioners and intervenors and made their reinstatement inevitable were it not for their failure to bring the action within the prescriptive...