This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It is the Court's position that the Uniform Rules did not supplant the law which provided the CSC with original jurisdiction. While the Uniform Rules may have so provided, the Court invites attention to the cases of Civil Service Commission v. Alfonso[31] and Civil Service Commission v. Sojor,[32] to be further discussed in the course of this decision, both of which buttressed the pronouncement that the Board of Regents shares its authority to discipline erring school officials and employees with the CSC. It can be presumed that, at the time of their promulgation, the members of this Court, in Alfonso and Sojor, were fully aware of all the existing laws and applicable rules and regulations pertaining to the jurisdiction of the CSC, including the Uniform Rules. In fact, Sojor specifically cited the Uniform Rules in support of its ruling allowing the CSC to take cognizance of an administrative case filed directly with it against the president of a state university. As the Court, in the two cases, did not consider Section 5 of the Uniform Rules as a limitation to the original concurrent jurisdiction of the CSC, it can be stated that Section 5 is merely implementary. It is merely directory and not restrictive of the CSC's powers. The CSC itself is of this view as it has vigorously asserted its jurisdiction over this case through this petition. | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| It has been argued that Hilario is not squarely in point.[27] While it is true that the circumstances present in the two cases are not identical, a careful reading of Hilario reveals that petitioner therein questioned the authority of the CSC to hear the disciplinary case filed against him, alleging that the CSC's jurisdiction was only appellate in nature. Hence, the reference to the abovequoted passage in Hilario is very appropriate in this case as respondents herein pose a similar query before us. | |||||
|
2010-04-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| A parallel question was involved in Civil Service Commission v. Sojor [30] where the Court found no basis to broaden the scope of the doctrine of condonation: | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Concurrent jurisdiction is that which is possessed over the same parties or subject matter at the same time by two or more separate tribunals. [18] When the law bestows upon a government body the jurisdiction to hear and decide cases involving specific matters, it is to be presumed that such jurisdiction is exclusive unless it be proved that another body is likewise vested with the same jurisdiction, in which case, both bodies have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. [19] The authority to hear and decide administrative cases by the Board of Professional Teachers-PRC, DepEd and the CSC comes from Rep. Act No. 7836, Rep. Act No. 4670 and Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 807, respectively. | |||||
|
2009-06-11 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In Civil Service Commission v. Sojor,[25] an administrative case was filed against a state university president. There, we struck down the argument that the BOR has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide an administrative case filed against the respondent. We said:In light of the other provisions of R.A. No. 9299, respondent's argument that the BOR has exclusive power to remove its university officials must fail. Section 7 of R.A. No. 9299 states that the power to remove faculty members, employees, and officials of the university is granted to the BOR "in addition to its general powers of administration." This provision is essentially a reproduction of Section 4 of its predecessor, R.A. No. 8292, demonstrating that the intent of the lawmakers did not change even with the enactment of the new law. x x x | |||||