This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-12-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Settled is the rule that jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or the law.[21] Republic v. Court of Appeals[22] also enunciatedthat only a statute can confer jurisdiction on courts and administrative agencies. | |||||
|
2009-12-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In taking cognizance of the administrative case for dishonesty against respondent, the CSC invoked Section 28, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations which provides that the CSC "shall have original disciplinary jurisdiction over all its officials and employees and over all cases involving civil service examination anomalies or irregularities." The CSC further contends that administrative cases of dishonesty in connection with duties and responsibilities under Section 47, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Revised Administrative Code are different from cases of dishonesty in connection with cheating incidents in Civil Service examinations administered by the CSC. In the latter case, the CSC assumes jurisdiction as an integral part of its duty, authority and power to administer the civil service system and protect its integrity, citing the case of Civil Service Commission v. Albao.[7] | |||||
|
2009-09-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has also previously held in Civil Service Commission v. Albao[10] that the CSC has the authority to directly institute proceedings to discipline a government employee in order to protect the integrity of the civil service. The relevant portion of our ruling in Albao follows: The present case, however, partakes of an act by petitioner to protect the integrity of the civil service system... It falls under the provisions of Sec. 12, par. 11, on administrative cases instituted by it directly. This is an integral part of its duty, authority and power to administer the civil service system and protect its integrity, as provided in Article IX-B, Sec. 3 of the Constitution, by removing from its list of eligibles those who falsified their qualifications. This is to be distinguished from ordinary proceedings intended to discipline a bona fide member of the system, for acts or omissions that constitute violations of the law or the rules of the service.[11] (emphasis supplied) | |||||