This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In Puse v. Santos-Puse,[10] it was held that the CSC, the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Board of Professional Teachers-Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC) have concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers. | |||||
|
2012-10-09 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Finally, with regard to the concern that the CSC may be overwhelmed by the increase in number of cases filed before it which would result from our ruling,[51] it behooves us to allay such worries by highlighting two important facts. Firstly, it should be emphasized that the CSC has original concurrent jurisdiction shared with the governing body in question, in this case, the Board of Regents of PUP. This means that if the Board of Regents first takes cognizance of the complaint, then it shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the CSC.[52] Thus, not all administrative cases will fall directly under the CSC. Secondly, Section 47, Chapter 7, Subtitle A, Title I, Book V of the Administrative Code affords the CSC the option of whether to decide the case or to deputize some other department, agency or official to conduct an investigation into the matter, thereby considerably easing the burden placed upon the CSC. | |||||
|
2010-10-04 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We likewise differ from SURNECO's stance that it was denied due process when the ERC issued its questioned Orders. Administrative due process simply requires an opportunity to explain one's side or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[24] It means being given the opportunity to be heard before judgment, and for this purpose, a formal trial-type hearing is not even essential. It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable chance to demonstrate their respective positions and to present evidence in support thereof.[25] | |||||