Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MENELIETO A. OLANDA v. LEONARDO G. BUGAYONG

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 209331 2015-08-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
The CSC has jurisdiction over all employees of government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.[5] The CSC is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service.[6] The rule is that disciplinary cases and cases involving personnel actions, including "appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail, reassignment, demotion, and separation," are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC.[7] This rule is embodied in Section 1, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws (Omnibus Rules) which states:SECTION 1. x x x.
	GR No. 209331 2015-08-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
Cases involving personnel actions are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and not within the trial courts' jurisdiction.[82]
	GR No. 209331 2015-04-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
The CSC has jurisdiction over all employees of government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.[5] The CSC is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service.[6] The rule is that disciplinary cases and cases involving personnel actions, including "appointment through certification, promotion, transfer, reinstatement, reemployment, detail, reassignment, demotion, and separation," are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC.[7] This rule is embodied in Section 1, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws (Omnibus Rules) which states:SECTION 1. x x x.
	GR No. 209331 2015-04-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
Cases involving personnel actions are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission and not within the trial courts' jurisdiction.[82]
	GR No. 171222 2015-02-18	PEOPLE v. LTSG. DOMINADOR BAYABOS SERENO, C.J.
First, we reject the contention of respondents that PMMA should not be considered an organization. Under the Anti-Hazing Law, the breadth of the term organization includes but is not limited to groups, teams, fraternities, sororities, citizen army training corps, educational institutions, clubs, societies, cooperatives, companies, partnerships, corporations, the PNP, and the AFP.[31] Attached to the Department of Transportation and Communications,[32] the PMMA is a government-owned educational institution[33] established for the primary purpose of producing efficient and well-trained merchant marine officers.[34] Clearly, it is included in the term organization within the meaning of the law.
	GR No. 173590 2013-12-09	PHILIPPINE POSTAL CORPORATION v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
It is well-established that the CSC has jurisdiction over all employees of government branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and, as such, is the sole arbiter of controversies relating to the civil service.[40] The PPC, created under RA 7354, is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter. Thus, being an employee of the PPC, De Guzman should have, after availing of the remedy of appeal before the PPC Board, sought further recourse before the CSC.
	GR No. 172027 2010-07-29	GONZALO S. GO v. CA VELASCO JR., J.
The appellate court is correct in ruling that the remedy availed of by Go is improper but not for the reason it proffered. Both Go and the appellate court overlooked the fact that the instant case involves personnel action in the government, i.e., Go is questioning the reallocation and demotion directed by the DBM which resulted in the diminution of his benefits. Thus, the proper remedy available to Go is to question the DBM denial of his protest before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) which has exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving personnel actions, and not before the OP. This was our ruling involving personnel actions in Mantala v. Salvador,[17] cited in Corsiga v. Defensor[18] and as reiterated in Olanda v. Bugayong.[19] In turn, the resolution of the CSC may be elevated to the CA under Rule 43 and, finally, before this Court. Consequently, Go availed himself of the wrong remedy when he went directly to the CA under Rule 43 without repairing first to the CSC.