Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUIS MARIO M. GENERAL v. RAMON S. ROCO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 170093 2009-04-29	JOSE PEPITO M. AMORES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION PERALTA, J.
Indeed, the law permits, on many occasions, the appointment of non-CES eligibles to CES positions in the government[34] in the absence of appropriate eligibles and when there is necessity in the interest of public service to fill vacancies in the government.[35] But in all such cases, the appointment is at best merely temporary[36] as it is said to be conditioned on the subsequent obtention of the required CES eligibility.[37] This rule, according to De Leon v. Court of Appeals,[38] Dimayuga v. Benedicto,[39] Caringal v. Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office,[40] and Achacoso v. Macaraig,[41] is invariable even though the given appointment may have been designated as permanent by the appointing authority.
	GR NO. 169604 2007-03-06	NELSON P. COLLANTES v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Mobility and flexibility in the assignment of personnel, the better to cope with the exigencies of public service, is thus the distinguishing feature of the Career Executive Service. x x x. and General v. Roco[25]:In addition, it must be stressed that the security of tenure of employees in the career executive service (except first and second-level employees in the civil service), pertains only to rank and not to the office or to the position to which they may be appointed. Thus, a career executive service officer may be transferred or reassigned from one position to another without losing his rank which follows him wherever he is transferred or reassigned. In fact, a CESO suffers no diminution of salary even if assigned to a CES position with lower salary grade, as he is compensated according to his CES rank and not on the basis of the position or office he occupies.
	GR NO. 168267 2006-02-16	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES v. ATTY. VICTORIA V. LOANZON CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respondent argues that Albano too does not possess CES eligibility and his appointment in her stead is thus legally untenable. The case of General v. Roco[17] instructs otherwise. Roco was appointed in August 1996 by then President Ramos as Land Transportation Office (LTO) Regional Director, a position equivalent to CES rank level V. He was subsequently appointed to the same position by President Estrada in February 1999. In August 1999, he was conferred CES eligibility, but still did not possess the appropriate CES rank level V for his position. General, who was not a CES eligible, was subsequently appointed by President Estrada to the same position occupied by Roco.
	GR No. 163573 2005-07-27	LEONORA B. IGNACIO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The petitioner was a member of the CES with a rank of CESO V; as such, her security of tenure pertains only to her rank and not to her office or her position. The security of tenure of employees in the career executive service (except first and second-level employees in the civil service), pertains only to rank and not to the office or to the position to which they may be appointed. Thus, a CESO may be transferred or reassigned from one position to another without losing his rank which follows him wherever he is transferred or reassigned. In fact, a CESO suffers no diminution of salary even if assigned to a CES position with lower salary grade, as the compensation is according to CES rank and not on the basis of the position or office occupied.[13]