- GSIS VS. CSC, 202 SCRA 799- The grant to the Civil Service
Commission of adjudicatory power, or the authority to hear and adjudge cases, necessarily includes the power to enforce or order execution of its decisions, resolutions, or orders. The authority to decide cases would be inutile unless accompanied by the authority to see that what has been decided is carried out.
- Pangasinan State University vs. CA, 526 SRCA 92- The CSC
is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service.
- Office of the Ombudsman vs. CSC, 528 SCRA 535- since the
responsibility of the establishment, administration and maintenance of qualification standards lies with the concerned department or agency, the role of the CSC is limited to assisting the department agency with respect to these qualification standards and approving them.
- CSC vs. Sojor, GR No. 168766, May 22, 2008- The
Constitution grants to the CSC administration over the entire civil service. As defined, the civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the government, including every government-owned or controlled corporation. It is further classified into career and non-career
service positions. Career service positions are those where: (1) entrance is based on merit and fitness or highly technical qualifications; (2) there is opportunity for advancement to higher career positions; and (3) there is security of tenure. A state university president with a fixed term of office appointed by the governing board of trustees of the university, is a non- career civil service officer. He was appointed by the chairman and members of the governing board of CVPC. By clear provision of law, respondent is a non-career civil servant who is under the jurisdiction of the CSC.
- CSC v. Alfonso, GR No. 179452, June 11, 2009,- Even though the
CSC has appellate jurisdiction over disciplinary cases decided by government departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, a complaint may be filed directly with the CSC, and the CSC has the authority to hear and decide the case, although it may in its discretion opt to deputize a department or an agency to conduct the investigation, as provided for in the Civil Service Law of 1975. The Supreme Court also ruled that since the complaints were filed directly with the CSC and the CSC had opted to assume jurisdiction over the complaint, the CSC’s exercise of jurisdiction shall be to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.
- CSC vs. DBM, GR No. 158791, July 22, 2005- The no “report,
no release” policy may not be validly enforced against offices vested with fiscal autonomy. Being automatic connotes something mechanical, spontaneous and perfunctory. It means that no condition to fund releases to it may be imposed.
- Naseco vs. NLRC, 68 SCRA 122- Employees of GOCCs, as a
general rule, are governed by the Civil Service Law. But a distinction of the manner the GOCC was created must be made. If the GOCC was established through an original charter (or special law), then it falls under the civil service, e.g., GSIS and SSS. However, corporations which are subsidiaries of these chartered agencies, e.g., Manila Hotel, is excluded from the coverage of the civil service.
- Leveriza vs. IAC, 157 SCRA 282- An agency of government
refers to any of the various units of the government, including a department, bureau, office, instrumentality or government- owned or controlled corporation or a local government or a distinct unit therein. Instrumentality refers to any agency of the national government, not integrated within the department
framework, vested with special functions or jurisdiction by law, endowed with some if not all corporate powers, administering special funds, and enjoying operational autonomy, usually through a charter. This term includes regulatory agencies, institutes and government-owned or controlled corporations,
- MWSS vs. Hernandez, 143 SCRA 602- If one is employed in a GOCC, whether regular or not, the civil service law applies. It
is not true either that with respect to money claims, the Labor Code applies. Regardless of the nature of employment or claim, an employee in a GOCC with original charter is covered by the Civil Service Law.
- Dimayuga vs. Benedicto II, 373 SCRA 652 (2002) – the
appointment to the positions in the Career Executive Service may be considered permanent in which the appointee enjoys security of tenure.
- Achacoso vs. Macaraig, 195 SCRA 235- permanent
appointment can be issued only to a “person who meets all the requirements for the position to which he is being appointed, including the appropriate eligibility prescribed.” The mere fact that a position belongs to the Career Service does not automatically confer security of tenure on its occupant even if he does not possess the required qualifications. Such right will have to “depend on the nature of appointment, which in turn depends on his eligibility or lack of it.
- Fernandez vs. Dela Paz, 160 SCRA 751- Unconsented transfer
of the officer, resulting in demotion in rank or salary is a violation of the security of tenure clause in the Constitution.
- Rosales, Jr. vs. Mijares, 442 SCRA 532- A transfer that aims
by indirect method to terminate services or to force resignation constitutes removal.
- Estrada vs. Escritor, June 22, 2006 – In the area of religious
exercise as a preferred freedom, however, man stands accountable to an authority higher than the state, and so the state interest sought to be upheld must be so compelling that its violation will erode the very fabric of the state that will also protect the freedom. In the absence of a showing such state interest exists, man must be allowed to subscribe to the Infinite.
- Mateo vs. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 284- The party
the government involving termination of services may appeal to the CSC within 15 days. Thereafter, he could go on certiorari to the Supreme Court under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court if he still feels aggrieved by the ruling of the CSC.
- PRIMARILY CONFIDENTIAL- Montecillo vs. CSC, June
28, 2001- The CSC is expressly empowered by the Administrative Code of 1987 to declare positions in the Civil Service primarily confidential. (Read: Salazar vs. Mathay, 73 SCRA 285, on two instances when a position may be considered primarily confidential: (1) President declares the position to be primarily confidential upon recommendation of of the CSC; (2) when by the nature of the functions, there exists close intimacy between the appointee and appointing authority which ensures freedom of intercourse without embarrassment or freedom from misgiving or betrayals of personal trust or confidential matters of state.
HILARIO VS. CSC, 243 SCRA 206, City Legal Officer is
primarily confidential.
PAGCOR VS. RILLORAZA, June 25, 2001, The position of
Casino Operations Manager is not primarily confidential
- RESIGNATION- Estrada vs. Desierto, March 2, 2001, There
must intent to resign and the intent must be coupled by acts of relinquishment. The validity of a resignation is not governed by any formal requirement as to form. It can be oral. It can be written. It can be express. It can implied. As long as the resignation is clear, it must be given legal effect.
- To constitute a complete and operative resignation from public office, there must be: (1) an intention to relinquish a part of the term; (2) an act of relinquishment; and (3) an acceptance by the proper authority. The last one is required by reason of Article 238 of the Revised Penal Code. (Sangguniang Bayan of San Andres, Catanduanes vs. CA, 284 SCRA 276, 1997).
- Santos vs. CA, 345 SCRA 553, (2000) – rule on double
compensation not applicable to pension. A retiree receiving pension or gratuity after retirement can continue to receive such pension or gratuity if he accepts another government position to which another compensation is attached.
- PILC vs. Elma, G.R. No. 138965, March 5, 2007 – PCCG
Chair Magdangal Elma is prohibited under the Constitution from simultaneously serving as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel. The position of PCCG Chair and CPLC are incompatible offices since the CPLC reviews actions of the PCGG Chair. It pointed
out that the general rule to hold more than one office is “allowed by law or by the primary functions of his position”/
- Del Castillo vs. Civil Service Commission, August 21, 1997-
When an employee is illegally dismissed, and his reinstatement is later ordered by the Court, for all legal intents and purposes he is considered as not having left his office, and notwithstanding the silence of the decision, he is entitled to payment of back
salaries.
- DOTC vs. Cruz, GR No. 178256, July 23, 2008 –The Supreme
Court follows as a precedent, the DOTC did not effect Cruz's termination with bad faith and, consequently, no backwages can
be awarded in his favor.
- David vs. Gania GR No. 156030, August 14, 2003- A civil
service officer or employee, who has been found illegally dismissed or suspended, is entitled to be reinstated and to
back wages and other monetary benefits from the time of his illegal dismissal or suspension up to his reinstatement, and if
at the time the decision of exoneration is promulgated, he is already of retirement age, he shall be entitled not only to back wages but also to full retirement benefits.
- CSC vs. Dacoycoy, April 29, 1999 – The CSC as an aggrieved
party, may appeal the decision of the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. Appeal now lies from a decision exonerating a civil service employee of administrative charges.
- CSC vs. Albao, October 13, 2005- The present case partakes of
an act by petitioner CSC to protect the integrity of the civil service system, and does not fall under the provision on disciplinary actions under Sec. 47. It falls under the provisions of Sec. 12, par. 11, on administrative cases instituted by it directly. This is an integral part of its duty, authority and power to administer the civil service system and protect its integrity, as provided in Article IX-B, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, by removing from its list of eligibles those who falsified their qualifications. This is to be distinguished from ordinary proceedings intended to discipline a bona fide member of the system, for acts or omissions that constitute violations of the law or the rules of the service.
- SSS Employees Ass. vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686- While the
government employees may strike, they are prohibited from
striking by express provision of Memorandum Circular No. 6, series of 1997 of the CSC and as implied in E.O. 180.
COMELEC
- REAPPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS- Matibag vs.
Benipayo, April 2, 2002- The phrase “without reappointment”
applies only to one who has been appointed by the President and confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, whether or not such person completes his term of office which could be seven, five or three years. There must be a confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments of the previous appointment
before the prohibition on reappointment can apply.
- ISSUANCE of writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus only in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.- Relampagos vs. Cumba, 243 SCRA 690.
- Bedol vs. COMELEC, GR No. 179830, December 3, 2009-
The COMELEC possesses the power to conduct investigations as an adjunct to its constitutional duty to enforce and administer all election laws, by virtue of the explicit provisions of paragraph 6, Section 2, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution, which reads: Article IX-C, Section 2. xxx
- (6) xxx; investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws, including acts or omissions constituting election frauds, offenses, and malpractices.
- The powers and functions of the COMELEC, conferred upon it by the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code, may be classified into administrative, quasi-legislative, and quasi- judicial. The quasi-judicial power of the COMELEC embraces the power to resolve controversies arising from the enforcement of election laws, and to be the sole judge of all pre-proclamation controversies; and of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications. Its quasi-legislative power refers to the issuance of rules and regulations to implement the election laws and to exercise such legislative functions as may expressly be delegated to it by Congress. Its administrative function refers to the enforcement and administration of election laws. In the exercise of such power, the Constitution (Section 6, Article IX- A) and the Omnibus Election Code (Section 52 [c]) authorize the COMELEC to issue rules and regulations to implement the
provisions of the 1987 Constitution and the Omnibus Election Code.7
- The quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply, and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The Court, in Dole Philippines Inc. v. Esteva, described quasi-judicial power in the following manner, viz:
- Quasi-judicial or administrative adjudicatory power on the other hand is the power of the administrative agency to adjudicate the rights of persons before it. It is the power to hear and determine questions of fact to which the legislative policy is to apply and to decide in accordance with the standards laid down by the law itself in enforcing and administering the same law. The administrative body exercises its quasi-judicial power when it performs in a judicial manner an act which is essentially of an executive or administrative nature, where the power to act in such manner is incidental to or reasonably necessary for the performance of the executive or administrative duty entrusted to it. In carrying out their quasi-judicial functions the administrative officers or bodies are required to investigate facts or ascertain the existence of facts, hold hearings, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions from them as basis for their official action and exercise of discretion in a judicial nature. Since rights of specific persons are affected, it is elementary that in the proper exercise of quasi-judicial power due process must be observed in the conduct of the proceedings.
- Task Force Maguindanao’s fact-finding investigation – to probe into the veracity of the alleged fraud that marred the elections in said province; and consequently, to determine whether the certificates of canvass were genuine or spurious, and whether an election offense had possibly been committed – could by no means be classified as a purely ministerial or administrative function.
- The COMELEC, through the Task Force Maguindanao, was
exercising its quasi-judicial power in pursuit of the truth behind the allegations of massive fraud during the elections in Maguindanao. To achieve its objective, the Task Force conducted hearings and required the attendance of the parties concerned and their counsels to give them the opportunity to argue and support their respective positions.
- The effectiveness of the quasi–judicial power vested by law on a government institution hinges on its authority to compel attendance of the parties and/or their witnesses at the hearings or proceedings.
- In the same vein, to withhold from the COMELEC the power to punish individuals who refuse to appear during a fact-finding investigation, despite a previous notice and order to attend, would render nugatory the COMELEC’s investigative power, which is an essential incident to its constitutional mandate to secure the conduct of honest and credible elections. In this case, the purpose of the investigation was however derailed when petitioner obstinately refused to appear during said hearings and to answer questions regarding the various election documents which, he claimed, were stolen while they were in his possession and custody. Undoubtedly, the COMELEC could punish petitioner for such contumacious refusal to attend the Task Force hearings.
- Even assuming arguendo that the COMELEC was acting as a
board of canvassers at that time it required petitioner to appear before it, the Court had the occasion to rule that the powers of the board of canvassers are not purely ministerial. The board exercises quasi-judicial functions, such as the function and duty to determine whether the papers transmitted to them are genuine election returns signed by the proper officers.10 When the results of the elections in the province of Maguindanao were being canvassed, counsels for various candidates posited numerous questions on the certificates of canvass brought before the COMELEC. The COMELEC asked petitioner to appear before it in order to shed light on the issue of whether the election documents coming from Maguindanao were spurious or not. When petitioner unjustifiably refused to appear, COMELEC undeniably acted within the bounds of its jurisdiction when it issued the assailed resolutions.
- Sema vs. COMELEC, 558 SCRA 700- The COMELEC does
not have the requisite power to call elections, as the same is part of the plenary legislative power.
- LDP vs. COMELEC, GR No. 151265, February 24, 2004 -
The COMELEC correctly stated that “the ascertainment of the identity of [a] political party and its legitimate officers” is a matter that is well within its authority. The source of this authority is no other than the fundamental law itself, which vests upon the COMELEC the power and function to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election. In the exercise of such power and in the discharge of such function, the Commission is endowed with ample “wherewithal” and “considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will ensure the accomplishment of the great objectives for which it was created to promote free, orderly and honest elections.
- LP vs. ATIENZA, ET AL., GR No. 174992- April 17, 2007 –
COMELEC has jurisdiction to decide questions of leadership within a party and to ascertain its legitimate officers and leaders. xxx The COMELEC is endowed with ample “wherewithal” and “considerable latitude in adopting means and methods that will ensure the accomplishment of the great objectives for which it was created to promote free and orderly honest elections.
- Atienza vs. COMELEC, GR No. 188920, February 16, 2010-
While the question of party leadership has implications on the COMELEC’s performance of its functions under Section 2 of Art. IX-C of the constitution, the same cannot be said of the issue pertaining to Ateinza, et al.’s expulsion from the LP. Such expulsion is for the moment an issue of party membership and discipline, in which the COMELEC cannot interfere, given the limited scope of its power over political parties.
- Galang vs. Geronimo and Ramos, (GR No. 192793, February 22, 2011)- In election cases involving an act or omission of a
municipal or regional trial court, petition for certiorari shall be filed exclusively with the COMELEC, in aid of its appellate jurisdiction.
- Balajonda vs. COMELEC, GR No. 166032, February 28, 2005- Despite the silence of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure
as to the procedure of the issuance of a writ of execution pending appeal, there is no reason to dispute the COMELEC’s authority to do so, considering that the suppletory application of the Rules of Court is expressly authorized by Section 1, Rule 41 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure which provides that absent any applicable provisions therein the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court shall be applicable by analogy or in a suppletory character and effect.
- Codilla vs. De Venecia, et al., December 10, 2002- Section 3,