This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2015-06-16 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Acceptance is indispensable to complete an appointment. Assuming office and taking the oath amount to acceptance of the appointment.[60] An oath of office is a qualifying requirement for a public office, a prerequisite to the full investiture of the office.[61] | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The Court reached the same conclusion in the recent case of Chavez v. Ronidel[49] where there was a similar inaction from the responsible officials which resulted in non-compliance with the requirement: Lastly, we agree with the appellate court that respondent's appointment could not be invalidated solely because of [Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor's (PCUP's)] failure to submit two copies of the ROPA as required by CSC Resolution No. 97368. xxxx | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Not even the historical development of civil service laws can justify the retention of such restrictive provisions. Public Law No. 5,[31] the law formally establishing a civil service system, merely directed that all heads of offices notify the Philippine Civil Service Board "in writing without delay of all appointments x x x made in the classified service."[32] The Revised Administrative Code of 1917 was even less stringent as approval by the Director of the Civil Service of appointments of temporary and emergency employees was required only when practicable. Finally, Republic Act (RA) 2260[33] imposed no period within which appointments were attested to by local government treasurers to whom the CSC delegated its authority to act on personnel actions but provided that if within 180 days after receipt of said appointments, the CSC shall not have made any correction or revision, then such appointments shall be deemed to have been properly made. Consequently, it was only under PD 807 that submission of appointments for approval by the CSC was subjected to a 30-day period. That, however, has been lifted and abandoned by EO 292. | |||||