You're currently signed in as:
User

EDUARDO NONATO JOSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY RUBEN D. TORRES

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

2011-07-06
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
On the other hand, the power of supervision means "overseeing or the authority of an officer to see to it that the subordinate officers perform their duties."[35]  If the subordinate officers fail or neglect to fulfill their duties, the official may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties.  Essentially, the power of supervision means no more than the power of ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or that subordinate officers act within the law.[36]  The supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he does not lay down the rules, nor does he have discretion to modify or replace them.[37]
2010-12-08
PEREZ, J.
This, notwithstanding, we have, in a number of cases, opted to relax the rule in order that the ends of justice may be served.[32] The defect being merely formal and not jurisdictional, we ruled that the court may nevertheless order the correction of the pleading, or even act on the pleading "if the attending circumstances are such that xxx strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice xxx may be served."[33] At any rate, a pleading is required to be verified only to ensure that it was prepared in good faith, and that the allegations were true and correct and not based on mere speculations.[34]
2010-12-07
MENDOZA, J.
In his memorandum in G.R. No. 192935, Biraogo asserts that the Truth Commission is a public office and not merely an adjunct body of the Office of the President.[31] Thus, in order that the President may create a public office he must be empowered by the Constitution, a statute or an authorization vested in him by law. According to petitioner, such power cannot be presumed[32] since there is no provision in the Constitution or any specific law that authorizes the President to create a truth commission.[33] He adds that Section 31 of the Administrative Code of 1987, granting the President the continuing authority to reorganize his office, cannot serve as basis for the creation of a truth commission considering the aforesaid provision merely uses verbs such as "reorganize," "transfer," "consolidate," "merge," and "abolish."[34] Insofar as it vests in the President the plenary power to reorganize the Office of the President to the extent of creating a public office, Section 31 is inconsistent with the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution and must be deemed repealed upon the effectivity thereof.[35]