This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The case of University of the Philippines v. Regino[47] was also cited to bolster the claim that original jurisdiction over disciplinary cases against government officials is vested upon the department secretaries and heads of agencies and instrumentalities, provinces, cities and municipalities, whereas the CSC only enjoys appellate jurisdiction over such cases.[48] The interpretation therein of the Administrative Code supposedly renders effectual the provisions of R.A. No. 8292 and does not "deprive the governing body of the power to discipline its own officials and employees and render inutile the legal provisions on disciplinary measures which may be taken by it."[49] | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court is not unaware of the use of the words "private citizen" in the subject provision and the plain meaning rule of statutory construction which requires that when the law is clear and unambiguous, it must be taken to mean exactly what it says. The Court, however, finds that a simplistic interpretation is not in keeping with the intention of the statute and prevailing jurisprudence. It is a well-established rule that laws should be given a reasonable interpretation so as not to defeat the very purpose for which they were passed. As such, "a literal interpretation is to be rejected if it would be unjust or lead to absurd results."[20] In Secretary of Justice v. Koruga,[21] the Court emphasized this principle and cautioned us on the overzealous application of the plain meaning rule: The general rule in construing words and phrases used in a statute is that in the absence of legislative intent to the contrary, they should be given their plain, ordinary, and common usage meaning. However, a literal interpretation of a statute is to be rejected if it will operate unjustly, lead to absurd results, or contract the evident meaning of the statute taken as a whole. After all, statutes should receive a sensible construction, such as will give effect to the legislative intention and so as to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion. Indeed, courts are not to give words meanings that would lead to absurd or unreasonable consequences.[22] | |||||
|
2008-05-22 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In University of the Philippines v. Regino,[38] this Court struck down the claim of exclusive jurisdiction of the UP BOR to discipline its employees. The Court held then:The Civil Service Law (PD 807) expressly vests in the Commission appellate jurisdiction in administrative disciplinary cases involving members of the Civil Service. Section 9(j) mandates that the Commission shall have the power to "hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases instituted directly with it in accordance with Section 37 or brought to it on appeal." And Section 37(a) provides that, "The Commission shall decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty (30) days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days' salary, demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office." (Emphasis supplied) | |||||