Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FIDENCIO Y. BEJA v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
Attachment, which enjoys "a larger measure of independence"[251] compared with other administrative relationships such as supervision and control, is further explained in Beja, Sr. v. Court of Appeals:[252]
	GR No. 184203 2014-11-26	CITY OF LAPU-LAPU v. PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY LEONEN, J.
Attachment, which enjoys "a larger measure of independence"[251] compared with other administrative relationships such as supervision and control, is further explained in Beja, Sr. v. Court of Appeals:[252]
	GR No. 180700 2008-03-04	VILLASEÑOR AND MESA v. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL. REYES, R.T., J.
Imposed during the pendency of proceedings, preventive suspension is not a penalty in itself. It is merely a measure of precaution so that the employee who is charged may be separated, for obvious reasons, from office. Thus, preventive suspension is distinct from the penalty. While the former may be imposed on a respondent during the investigation of the charges against him, the latter may be meted out to him at the final disposition of the case.[29]
	GR NO. 166052 2007-08-29	ANAK MINDANAO PARTY-LIST GROUP v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY CARPIO MORALES, J.
The Administrative Code of 1987 categorizes administrative relationships into (1) supervision and control, (2) administrative supervision, and (3) attachment.[41] With respect to the third category, it has been held that an attached agency has a larger measure of independence from the Department to which it is attached than one which is under departmental supervision and control or administrative supervision. This is borne out by the "lateral relationship" between the Department and the attached agency. The attachment is merely for "policy and program coordination."[42] Indeed, the essential autonomous character of a board is not negated by its attachment to a commission.[43]