This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-08-25 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| Again, in Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission,[21] where the Civil Service Commission affirmed the dismissal without proper notice of an employee who has been with the Agricultural Training Institute for 36 long years, we said that "[t]he disputed ruling cuts too deeply on petitioner's right to continue his employment in the government and unduly dilutes the protection of due process. To be sure, the cavalier attitude of respondent Commission is deplorable considering that on the line is the thirty-six (36) long years of faithful and dedicated service to the government of the petitioner. Nothing less than strict compliance with the demands of due process should have been demanded by respondent Commission from the officials of the ATI in light of the equities of the case."[22] | |||||
|
2002-02-06 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The sole ground invoked by him for exemption from the rule on nepotism is, as above indicated: the rule does not apply to designation - only to appointment. He changed his mind only after the public respondent, in its Resolution No. 83-358, ruled that the "prohibitive mantle on nepotism would include designation, because what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly" and, more specifically, only when he filed his motion to reconsider said resolution. Strictly speaking, estoppel has bound petitioner to his prior admission. Per Article 1431 of the Civil Code, through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.[23] If it is true that the City Government of Makati City wanted to change its stance and consider the suspension memorandum as an error, it should have required private respondent to file an application for leave as it was its obligation to inform her of such requirement. In particular, the subsequent memorandum dropping Galzote from the rolls effective 21 January 1993 should have been sent to her at the Rizal Provincial Jail where she had been detained and where she could have received it. This Court will not confer validity upon the later memorandum which violates due process. As we ruled in Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission[24] - | |||||