This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2013-07-17 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| The foregoing duties and responsibilities are not susceptible of partial performance or division into parts as would justify its classification into lump sum work. Neither are these advisory in nature as would make it fall under the scope of a consultancy service.[47] The status of Dr. Posadas' employment as TMC Project Director is a coterminous one. Under civil service rules, appointments of personnel under foreign-assisted projects shall be issued and approved as coterminous with the project,[48] that is, they are considered employees for the duration of the project, in which case, the name of the project and its completion date shall be indicated in the appointment.[49] This status of employment is to be distinguished from contract of services which covers lump sum work or services such as janitorial, security or consultancy services, whose appointments need not be submitted to the CSC for approval. | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The Court of Appeals held that petitioners are not similarly situated as the petitioner in the case of Chua v. Civil Service Commission[19] since the contractual appointment was submitted to and approved by the CSC, while the former were not.[20] Further, petitioners do not have creditable service for purposes of retirement, since their services were not supported by duly approved appointments.[21] Lastly, the Court of Appeals held that petitioners were exempt from compulsory membership in the GSIS. Having made no monthly contributions remitted to the said office, petitioners are not entitled to the separation and/or retirement benefits that they are claiming.[22] | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The case of Chua v. Civil Service Commission[90] relied upon by petitioners is not in point. There was no question that Chua was an employee, specifically a contractual/project employee of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA). The CSC's denial of her request for early retirement benefits was based on the CSC's conclusion that contractual employees are not covered by the Early Retirement Law.[91] This Court held that co-terminus employees who have rendered years of continuous service such as Chua -who was continuously hired and rehired for four (4) successive times in a span of fifteen (15) years-should be included in the coverage of the Early Retirement Law as long as they comply with CSC regulations promulgated for such purpose. Underlying this grant of retirement benefits to Chua is the finding that her work with the NIA was recognized and accredited by the CSC as government service, that she paid her GSIS contributions throughout her service, and the fact that she applied for the benefit within the prescribed period.[92] | |||||
|
2005-05-10 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its application. There is always an omission that may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the time of enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may be inadequate to provide for the unfolding of events of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced. One of the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication. The doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is expressed. Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. And every statutory grant of power, right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege. This is so because the greater includes the lesser, expressed in the maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et minus.[18] | |||||