Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LIBERATO M. CARABEO v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 190120 2014-11-11	CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PHILIPPINES EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OF PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The Court cannot agree to petitioner's supposition that there should be automatic absorption of all ATO employees to the CAAP. Indeed, there is no such thing as a vested interest in a public office, let alone an absolute right to hold it. Except constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary.[100] Public office is not property but a "public trust or agency." While their right to due process may be relied upon by public officials to protect their security of tenure which, in a limited sense, is analogous to property,[101] such fundamental right to security of tenure cannot be invoked against a valid abolition of office effected by the legislature itself.
	GR No. 183890 2011-04-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MANUEL P. VALENCIA MENDOZA, J.
In the case of Carabeo v. Court of Appeals,[35] citing Ombudsman v. Valeroso,[36] the Court restated the rationale for the SALN and the evils that it seeks to thwart, to wit: Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, the evil sought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates full disclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed particularly at curtailing and minimizing, the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. "Unexplained" matter normally results from "non-disclosure" or concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all public officials and employees are mandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government. By the SALN, the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth. [Emphasis supplied]
	GR No. 185685 2011-01-31	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NIETO A. RACHO MENDOZA, J.
In the case of Carabeo v. Court of Appeals,[39] citing Ombudsman v. Valeroso,[40] the Court restated the rationale for the SALN and the evils that it seeks to thwart, to wit: Section 8 above, speaks of unlawful acquisition of wealth, the evil sought to be suppressed and avoided, and Section 7, which mandates full disclosure of wealth in the SALN, is a means of preventing said evil and is aimed particularly at curtailing and minimizing, the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the public service. "Unexplained" matter normally results from "non-disclosure" or concealment of vital facts. SALN, which all public officials and employees are mandated to file, are the means to achieve the policy of accountability of all public officers and employees in the government. By the SALN, the public are able to monitor movement in the fortune of a public official; it is a valid check and balance mechanism to verify undisclosed properties and wealth.
	GR No. 157383 2010-08-18	WINSTON F. GARCIA v. MARIO I. MOLINA NACHURA, J.
In the procedure adopted by petitioner, respondents were preventively suspended in the same formal charges issued by the former without the latter knowing that there were pending administrative cases against them. It is true that prior notice and hearing are not required in the issuance of a preventive suspension order.[41] However, considering that respondents were preventively suspended in the same formal charges that we now declare null and void, then their preventive suspension is likewise null and void.