This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Citing Aquino v. Civil Service Commission,[15] the CA emphasized that an appointee acquires a legal right to his position once he assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment. This legal right is protected both by statute and the Constitution, and he cannot be removed from office without cause and previous notice and hearing. Appointees cannot be removed at the mere will of those vested with the power of removal, or without any cause. | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The constitutional and statutory guarantee of security of tenure is extended to both those in the career and non-career service positions, and the cause under which an employee may be removed or suspended must naturally have some relation to the character or fitness of the officer or employee, for the discharge of the functions of his office, or expiration of the project for which the employment was extended. [9] Further, well-entrenched is the rule on security of tenure that such an appointment is issued and the moment the appointee assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment, he acquires a legal, not merely equitable right (to the position), which is protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution [Article IX-B, Section 2, paragraph (3)] and cannot be taken away from him either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal, except for cause, and with previous notice and hearing.[10] | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Accordingly, petitioner's subsequent appointment was void. There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position. The incumbent must first be legally removed, or her appointment validly terminated, before another can be appointed to succeed her.[52] | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Mayor de Rama failed to present evidence that subject appointments should be revoked or recalled because of any of the abovementioned grounds enumerated. As a matter of fact, said appointments were even approved by the Head, Civil Service Field Office, Lucena City when submitted for attestation. In the absence of a clear showing that these appointments were issued in violation of any of these grounds, the Commission has no other recourse but to uphold their validity. (Underscoring supplied) The CSC also cited the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Aquino v. Civil Service Commission[5] wherein this Court held that:It is well-settled that once an appointment is issued and the moment the appointee assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment, he acquires a legal, not merely equitable right (to the position), which is protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution, and cannot be taken away from him either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal, except for cause, and with previous notice and hearing. (Emphasis supplied) Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, arguing that the CSC arrived at the erroneous conclusion after it ignored his "supplement to the consolidated appeal and motion for reconsideration" wherein he laid out evidence showing that the subject appointments were obtained through fraud. | |||||