This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In CSC v. Alfonso,[18] it was held that special laws, such as R.A. No. 4670, do not divest the CSC of its inherent power to supervise and discipline all members of the civil service, including public school teachers. Pat-og, as a public school teacher, is first and foremost, a civil servant accountable to the people and answerable to the CSC for complaints lodged against him as a public servant. To hold that R.A. No. 4670 divests the CSC of its power to discipline public school teachers would negate the very purpose for which the CSC was established and would impliedly amend the Constitution itself. | |||||
|
2013-04-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body where the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.[25] In this case, the petitioner is a Barangay Chairman, occupying a position corresponding to salary grade 14.[26] Under RA 7160, the sangguniang panlungsod or sangguniang bayan has disciplinary authority over any elective barangay official, as follows: Section 61. Form and Filing of Administrative Complaints. A verified complaint against any erring local elective official shall be prepared as follows: | |||||
|
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. |
||||
| Although respondent Planas is a public official, there is nothing under the law to prevent her from filing a complaint directly with the CSC against petitioner. Thus, when the CSC determined that petitioner was no longer entitled to hold the position of City Legal Officer, it was acting within its authority under the Administrative Code to hear and decide complaints filed before it.[26] [Underscoring supplied] | |||||
|
2010-07-23 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| In administrative cases involving the concurrent jurisdiction of two or more disciplining authorities, the body in which the complaint is filed first, and which opts to take cognizance of the case, acquires jurisdiction to the exclusion of other tribunals exercising concurrent jurisdiction.[31] In this case, since the complaint was filed first in the Ombudsman, and the Ombudsman opted to assume jurisdiction over the complaint, the Ombudsman's exercise of jurisdiction is to the exclusion of the sangguniang bayan exercising concurrent jurisdiction. | |||||
|
2010-03-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| As the central personnel agency of the government, the CSC has jurisdiction to supervise and discipline all government employees including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. [21] Consequently, if civil service rules and regulations are violated, complaints for said violations may be filed with the CSC. | |||||
|
2009-09-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the recent case of Civil Service Commission v. Alfonso,[9] the Court held that special laws such as R.A. 4670 did not divest the CSC of its inherent power to supervise and discipline all members of the civil service, including public school teachers. To quote from that decision: As the central personnel agency of the government, the CSC has jurisdiction to supervise the performance of and discipline, if need be, all government employees, including those employed in government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters such as PUP. Accordingly, all PUP officers and employees, whether they be classified as teachers or professors pursuant to certain provisions of law, are deemed, first and foremost, civil servants accountable to the people and answerable to the CSC in cases of complaints lodged by a citizen against them as public servants. xxx | |||||