Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 192074 2014-06-10	LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY v. AURORA A. SALVAÑA LEONEN, J.
In National Power Corporation v. Civil Service Commission and Tanfelix,[80] the National Power Corporation had previously filed an administrative complaint against one of its employees, Rodrigo Tanfelix, resulting in his dismissal from service. When the Civil Service Commission exonerated Tanfelix and the Court of Appeals affirmed the exoneration, the National Power Corporation was allowed to appeal.
	GR No. 192685 2013-07-31	OSCAR R. AMPIL v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PEREZ, J.
Grave misconduct, of which Espenesin has been charged, consists in a public officer's deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior. It is regarded as grave when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules are present.[57] In particular, corruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the official's unlawful and wrongful use of his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.[58]
	GR No. 176172 2012-11-20	EFREN G. AMIT v. COA BRION, J.
Viewed in these lights, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error of law in affirming the Ombudsman's decision. "Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. As differentiated from simple misconduct, in grave misconduct[,] the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest."[21] "[C]orruption as an element of grave misconduct consists in the official's unlawful and wrongful use of his station or character [reputation] to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others."[22]
	GR No. 201112 2012-06-13	ARCHBISHOP FERNANDO R. CAPALLA v. COMELEC PERALTA, J.
Within seven (7) days from delivery by the PROVIDER to COMELEC of the Over-all Project Management Report after successful conduct of the May 10, 2010 elections, COMELEC shall release to the PROVIDER the above-mentioned Performance Security without need of demand.[37]