7/21/2019 Lina v. Purisima

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/lina-v-purisima 1/1

LINA VS. PURISIMA 

– power to dispense rules

•  Lualhati Lina was a bookkeeperat PVB.

•  Petitioner files for mandamus to compel Cabanos(President of Phil. Veterans Bank) to restore Lina to her

position. Lina claims she was removed from office byCabanos who acted in gadalej.

•  It appeared from the annexes of the amended petition

that Lina was dismissed by Cabanos pursuant to LOI #

13 / LOI # 19 for being notoriously undesirable.

•  The RTC dismissed the petition because:

o 

Since the removal of Lina was pursuant to LOIissued by the President pursuant to Proclamation

1081, the validity or legality of said act is beyond

the power of the courts to review, much lessmodify, or reverse. This is one of the express

limitations upon the power of the Courts inGENERAL ORDER # 3 by President Marcos.

o 

The General Order provides that the courts

cannot rule upon the validity or legality of anydecree order or act issued by President Marcos,

pursuant to Proclamation 1081.

SC:

The petitioner’s right to redress is beyond dispute. When

the RTC invoked General Order #3, it was nothing short ofan unwarranted abdication of judicial authority. The judge

was apparently unaware that the Court has always deemed

General Order # 3 as practically inoperative even in thelight of Proclamation 1081. There is unanimity among Us in

the view that it is for the Court rather than the Executive todetermine whether or not We make take cognizance of any

given case involving the validity of the acts of the Executive

purportedly under the authority of martial law

proclamations.

Also, the President has publicly acknowledged that even if

there was martial law, it is still subject to the authority and jurisdiction of the SC.

Thus, the RTC committed grave error in not taking

 jurisdiction over the case. Ordinarily, the case should be

remanded to the judge to be tried on the merits. Yet, this

Supreme Court, whose power and duty to do justice are

inherent, plenary and imperative, extends to all instances

where it appears that final resolution of the parties involvedfull opportunity to be heard. Thus, the SC may at its option,

whenever it feels the best interest of justice would be

thereby subserved, dispense with the usual procedure ofremanding the case to the court of origin for its own

 judgment, and instead, the SC may already resolve theissues and rended the final judgment on the merits.

SC reinstated Lina to work.