This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-02-16 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We fully agree with the rationalization of the CA in both CA-G.R. SP No. 67490 and CA-G.R. SP No. 67491. The two divisions of the appellate court cited the case of Callanta v. Office of the Ombudsman,[34] where we ruled that under Section 226 of R.A. No 7160,[35] the last action of the local assessor on a particular assessment shall be the notice of assessment; it is this last action which gives the owner of the property the right to appeal to the LBAA. The procedure likewise does not permit the property owner the remedy of filing a motion for reconsideration before the local assessor. The pertinent holding of the Court in Callanta is as follows:x x x [T]he same Code is equally clear that the aggrieved owners should have brought their appeals before the LBAA. Unfortunately, despite the advice to this effect contained in their respective notices of assessment, the owners chose to bring their requests for a review/readjustment before the city assessor, a remedy not sanctioned by the law. To allow this procedure would indeed invite corruption in the system of appraisal and assessment. It conveniently courts a graft-prone situation where values of real property may be initially set unreasonably high, and then subsequently reduced upon the request of a property owner. In the latter instance, allusions of a possible covert, illicit trade-off cannot be avoided, and in fact can conveniently take place. Such occasion for mischief must be prevented and excised from our system.[36] | |||||
|
2004-01-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Undue solicitation by respondent clerk was not sufficiently established. While she admitted to having acted on her own in directing complainant to post the cash bond -- thereby arrogating judicial authority unto herself --there is no ample evidence that, in so doing, she had been propelled by a less than laudable motive, a clear intent to violate the law, or a flagrant disregard of an established rule.[54] Hence, her action constituted simple misconduct.[55] Under Section 52 (B) (2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[56] simple misconduct is punishable with suspension from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. | |||||