Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LOLITA DADUBO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 191877 2013-06-18	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. ARIEL R. MARQUEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission,[22] the Court pronounced that the charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense. It must be stressed that what the law requires is to simply inform the civil servant of the nature and cause of accusation against him in a clear and concise manner for the purpose of giving him the right to confront the allegations against him.
	GR No. 172334 2013-06-05	DR. ZENAIDA P. PIA v. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO REYES, J.
Pia's argument that she was not properly charged with the offense for which she was found guilty of committing still does not warrant her exoneration from the offense. In Avenido, we emphasized that the designation of the offense or offenses with which a person is charged in an administrative case is not controlling, and one may be found guilty of another offense where the substance of the allegations and evidence presented sufficiently proves one's guilt.[24] Citing the case of Dadubo v. Civil Service Commission,[25] we held in Avenido that the charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense.[26]
	GR No. 177666 2008-04-30	EUGENIO R. AVENIDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PER CURIAM
The charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense.[16]
	GR No. 146053 2008-04-30	DIOSCORO F. BACSIN v. EDUARDO O. WAHIMAN
The charge against the respondent in an administrative case need not be drafted with the precision of an information in a criminal prosecution. It is sufficient that he is apprised of the substance of the charge against him; what is controlling is the allegation of the acts complained of, not the designation of the offense.[10]