GR 173634; (July, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 173634; July 22, 2010
PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT AND GAMING CORPORATION (PAGCOR), represented by ATTY. CARLOS R. BAUTISTA, JR., Petitioner, vs. RUFINO G. AUMENTADO, JR., Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Rufino G. Aumentado, Jr., a former PAGCOR table supervisor, was dismissed from service. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) declared his termination illegal and ordered his reinstatement with backwages. PAGCOR’s appeal to the Supreme Court was denied for being filed out of time, making the CSC decision final and executory. Respondent then moved for execution. However, prior to the CSC’s grant of his motion, respondent and PAGCOR entered into an amicable settlement. For monetary consideration, respondent executed a quitclaim waiving all claims, including his right to reinstatement.
PAGCOR subsequently filed a manifestation with the CSC, presenting the quitclaim and praying for the reconsideration of the execution order. The CSC denied PAGCOR’s motion, ordering that the payment under the quitclaim be treated as an advance on back salaries and that respondent be reinstated. PAGCOR appealed this CSC resolution to the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing PAGCOR’s appeal on the ground that the assailed CSC resolutions were merely orders of execution and thus not appealable under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the appellate court’s decision, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The legal logic is that while a writ of execution is generally not appealable, an appeal is permissible when the writ varies the judgment or exceeds its terms, or when the judgment has been novated or superseded by subsequent events. In this case, PAGCOR was not merely challenging the execution order itself but was invoking the quitclaim as a supervening event that allegedly extinguished respondent’s right to reinstatement under the final judgment. The CSC, in resolving PAGCOR’s motion, necessarily examined and ruled upon the validity and legal effect of this quitclaim. Therefore, the CSC resolutions denying PAGCOR’s plea based on the quitclaim were not mere interlocutory orders of execution but were final dispositions on a distinct issue that arose after judgment. Consequently, these resolutions were appealable to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The Supreme Court found it proper to reinstate the appeal and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for a thorough examination of the evidence regarding the validity of the quitclaim.