Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MACARIO CATIPON v. JEROME JAPSON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 209331 2015-08-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
The doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction precludes trial courts from resolving a controversy involving a question that is within the a exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.[107] The doctrine disallows courts "to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence."[108]
	GR No. 209331 2015-08-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
In Catipon, Jr. v. Japson,[127] respondent Jerome Japson (Japson), "a former Senior Member Services Representative of [the] [Social Security System,] Bangued, filed a letter-complaint [before] the Civil Service Commission-[Cordillera Administrative Region] Regional Director[.]"[128] He alleged that petitioner Macario U. Catipon, Jr. (Catipon) made deliberate false entries in his application to take the Civil Service Professional Examination.[129] The Civil Service Commission-Cordillera Administrative Region Regional Director found Catipon guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[130]
	GR No. 209331 2015-08-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
Catipon appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal.[131] The Court of Appeals held that instead of filing the appeal before the Court of Appeals, Catipon should have appealed to the Civil Service Commission, based on Sections 5(A)(1),[132] 43,[133] and 49[134] of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases.[135]
	GR No. 209331 2015-04-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
The doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction precludes trial courts from resolving a controversy involving a question that is within the a exclusive jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal.[107] The doctrine disallows courts "to arrogate unto itself the authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special competence."[108]
	GR No. 209331 2015-04-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
In Catipon, Jr. v. Japson,[127] respondent Jerome Japson (Japson), "a former Senior Member Services Representative of [the] [Social Security System,] Bangued, filed a letter-complaint [before] the Civil Service Commission-[Cordillera Administrative Region] Regional Director[.]"[128] He alleged that petitioner Macario U. Catipon, Jr. (Catipon) made deliberate false entries in his application to take the Civil Service Professional Examination.[129] The Civil Service Commission-Cordillera Administrative Region Regional Director found Catipon guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[130]
	GR No. 209331 2015-04-24	DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. MARINO M. DELA CRUZ CARPIO, J.
Catipon appealed to the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appeal.[131] The Court of Appeals held that instead of filing the appeal before the Court of Appeals, Catipon should have appealed to the Civil Service Commission, based on Sections 5(A)(1),[132] 43,[133] and 49[134] of the Civil Service Commission Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases.[135]