This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-16 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| In Civil Service Commission v. Macud,[35] the penalty of dismissal was prescribed with the accessory penalties against respondent who had been found guilty of making a false declaration in her PDS that she had passed the Professional Board Examination for Teachers. In Cruz v. Civil Service Commission[36] and Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana,[37] the employees found guilty of similar offenses were dismissed. In Cruz, Zenaida Paitim had masqueraded as Gilda Cruz, and had taken the Civil Service examination in lieu of Cruz. Both Paitim and Cruz were meted the penalty of dismissal from the service. In Sta. Ana, another person had taken the Civil Service examination for Sta. Ana, who was held guilty of dishonesty and dismissed from the service. | |||||
|
2012-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In Cruz v. Civil Service Commission[18] and Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana,[19] we also dismissed the employees found guilty of similar offenses. In Cruz, Zenaida Paitim masqueraded as Gilda Cruz and took the Civil Service examination in behalf of Cruz. We said that both Paitim and Cruz merited the penalty of dismissal.[20] In Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, somebody else took the Civil Service examination for Sta. Ana. We also dismissed Sta. Ana from the service for dishonesty. We find no reason to deviate from our previous rulings. Under Section 52(A)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal for the first offense. Under Section 58 of the same rules, dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. However, we exclude forfeiture of accrued leave credits pursuant to our ruling in Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana.[21] | |||||
|
2009-11-18 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. It has already been settled in Cruz v. Civil Service Commission[30] that the appellate power of the CSC will only apply when the subject of the administrative cases filed against erring employees is in connection with the duties and functions of their office, and not in cases where the acts of complainant arose from cheating in the civil service examinations. Thus: Petitioner's invocation of the law is misplaced. The provision is applicable to instances where administrative cases are filed against erring employees in connection with their duties and functions of the office. This is, however, not the scenario contemplated in the case at bar. It must be noted that the acts complained of arose from a cheating caused by the petitioners in the Civil Service (Subprofessional) examination. The examinations were under the direct control and supervision of the Civil Service Commission. The culprits are government employees over whom the Civil Service Commission undeniably has jurisdiction. x x x | |||||
|
2008-08-26 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| It is true that the CSC has administrative jurisdiction over the civil service. As defined under the Constitution and the Administrative Code, the civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the government, and government-owned or controlled corporations.[15] Pursuant to its administrative authority, the CSC is granted the power to "control, supervise, and coordinate the Civil Service examinations."[16] This authority grants to the CSC the right to take cognizance of any irregularity or anomaly connected with the examinations.[17] | |||||