Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MERLINDA JACINTO v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 171434 2010-04-23	NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. ALAN A. OLANDESCA PERALTA, J.
In Jacinto v. Court of Appeals,[21] this Court awarded petitioner Jacinto backwages after finding that she was only culpable of violating reasonable office rules and regulations for not having asked permission from school authorities to leave the school premises and seek medical attention and for not filing an application for sick leave for approval by the school authorities.
	GR NO. 160502 2007-04-27	TANJAY WATER DISTRICT v. CESAR A. QUINIT CALLEJO, SR., J.
Accordingly, respondent is not entitled to back salaries. The rule is settled that back salaries may be awarded to civil servants only if they have been illegally dismissed and thenceforth ordered reinstated, or to those acquitted of the charge against them.[35] Clearly, respondentï¿½s case does not fall within these instances.
	GR NO. 170132 2006-12-06	GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA GSIS GARCIA, J.
It should be stressed right off that the civil service encompasses all branches and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations (GOCCs) with original charters, like the GSIS,[9] or those created by special law.[10] As such, employees of covered GOCCs are part of the civil service system and are subject to circulars, rules and regulations issued by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on discipline, attendance and general terms/conditions of employment, inclusive of matters involving self-organization, strikes, demonstrations and like concerted actions. In fact, policies established on public sector unionism and rules issued on mass action have been noted and cited by the Court in at least a case.[11] Among these issuances is Executive Order (EO) No. 180, series of 1987, providing guidelines for the exercise of the right to organize of government employees. Relevant also is CSC Resolution No. 021316 which provides rules on prohibited concerted mass actions in the public sector.
	GR NO. 169838 2006-04-25	BAYAN v. EDUARDO ERMITA AZCUNA, J.
Respondent Mayor Joselito Atienza, for his part, submitted in his Comment that the petition in G.R. No. 169838 should be dismissed on the ground that Republic Act No. 7160 gives the Mayor power to deny a permit independently of B.P. No. 880; that his denials of permits were under the "clear and present danger' rule as there was a clamor to stop rallies that disrupt the economy and to protect the lives of other people; that J. B. L. Reyes v. Bagatsing,[11] Primicias v. Fugoso,[12] and Jacinto v. CA,[13] have affirmed the constitutionality of requiring a permit; that the permit is for the use of a public place and not for the exercise of rights; and that B.P. No. 880 is not a content-based regulation because it covers all rallies.
	GR NO. 162805 2006-01-23	ROMEO E. CABALITAN v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM QUISUMBING, J.
As repeatedly held, we accord great respect to the findings of administrative agencies because they have acquired expertise in their jurisdiction, and we will refrain from questioning their findings, particularly when these are affirmed by the appellate tribunal. We are not inclined to re-examine and re-evaluate the probative value of the evidence proffered in the concerned forum, which had formed the basis of the latter's impugned decision, resolution or order, absent a clear showing of arbitrariness and want of any rational basis therefor.[11]
	GR No. 132048 2002-03-06	ANTONIO M. NUESA v. COURT OF APPEALS (14TH DIVISION) QUISUMBING, J.
While it bears emphasizing that findings of administrative agencies, which have acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific matters are accorded not only respect but even finality by the courts,[30] care should be taken that administrative actions are not done without due regard to the jurisdictional boundaries set by the enabling law for each agency. In this case, respondent DARAB officials and boards, provincial and central, had overstepped their legal boundaries in taking cognizance of the controversy between petitioner Rivera and private respondent Verdillo as to who should be awarded Lots 1932 and 1904 of the Buenavista Estate. Respondent appellate court erred in sustaining DARAB's unjustified action taken with grave abuse of discretion resulting in lack or excess of its jurisdiction.