Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JEROME JAPSON v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 202331 2015-04-22	PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF AURORA v. HILARIO M. MARCO LEONEN, J.
We agree with the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals that Governor Ong issued Marco's appointment in accordance with Resolution No. 030918. Although his appointment was made five (5) days before the end of Governor Ong's term, Marco was fully qualified for the position and had undergone regular screening processes before the election ban. As the Civil Service Commission found, Marco "applied for the [position of Cooperative Development Specialist II] [and] passed the screening conducted by the Personnel Selection Board (PSB) on February 12 & 13, 2004[.]"[132] The Court of Appeals reiterated this finding in its Decision dated March 2, 2012.[133] Absent a showing of grave abuse of discretion, this court will not disturb the findings of fact of the Civil Service Commission,[134] especially since it has acquired "specialized knowledge and expertise"[135] in the field of civil service law.
	GR No. 207422 2015-03-18	ANGEL ABAD v. HERMINIO DELA CRUZ LEONEN, J.
With its constitutional mandate, the Civil Service Commission has acquired "specialized knowledge and expertise"[72] in the field of civil service law. Consequently, its findings of fact, if based on substantial evidence, are "accorded great respect and even finality"[73] by appellate courts, this court included. Absent grave abuse of discretion, this court will not disturb the findings of fact of the Civil Service Commission.[74]
	AM No. 2008-23-SC 2014-09-30	ALLEGED LOSS OF VARIOUS BOXES OF COPY PAPER DURING THEIR TRANSFER FROM PROPERTY DIVISION BERSAMIN, J.
There is grave misconduct when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.[12] Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness.[13] Both gross misconduct and dishonesty are grave offenses that are punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.[14]
	GR No. 190524 2014-02-17	MICHAELINA RAMOS BALASBAS v. PATRICIA B. MONAYAO DEL CASTILLO, J.
On the other hand, misconduct is a transgression of some established or definite rule of action, is a forbidden act, is a dereliction of duty, is willful in character, and implies wrongful intent and not mere error in judgment. More particularly, it is an unlawful behavior by the public officer. x x x[29]
	GR No. 191877 2013-06-18	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. ARIEL R. MARQUEZ VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Dishonesty is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duty. It implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle; and lack of fairness and straightforwardness.[25] Under the Civil Service Rules, dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal which carries the accessory penalties of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits (except leave credits), and disqualification from reemployment in the government service.[26]
	GR No. 196201 2012-06-19	FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III v. FLORENTINO VELOSO BRION, J.
Prejudice to the service is not only through wrongful disbursement of public funds or loss of public property.[22] Greater damage comes with the public's perception of corruption and incompetence in the government.[23]
	AM No. P-10-2867 2012-06-19	EXECUTIVE JUDGE MELANIO C. ROJAS v. ANA MARIVIC L. MINA PER CURIAM
Furthermore, stealing the checks and encashing them are considered acts of gross dishonesty.[11] Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive or betray.[12]
	GR No. 180236 2012-01-17	GEMMA P. CABALIT v. COA-REGION VII VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Neglect of duty implies only the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee arising from either carelessness or indifference.[47] However, the facts of this case show more than a failure to mind one's task. Rather, they manifest that Olaivar committed acts of dishonesty, which is defined as the concealment or distortion of truth in a matter of fact relevant to one's office or connected with the performance of his duty. It implies a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity, or integrity in principle.[48] Hence, the CA should have found Olaivar liable for dishonesty.