This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-11-11 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| After comparing the features and functions of the ATO and the CAAP, we find that CAAP indeed assumed the functions of the ATO. However, the overlap in their functions does not mean there was no valid abolition of the ATO.[97] The CAAP has new and expanded features and functions which are intended to meet the growing needs of a globally competitive civil aviation industry, adherent to internationally recognized standards. Thus, in National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration v. Civil Service Commission,[98] we held that: if the newly created office has substantially new, different or additional functions, duties or powers, so that it may be said in fact to create an office different from the one abolished, even though it embraces all or some of the duties of the old office it will be considered as an abolition of one office and the creation of a new or different one. The same is true if one office is abolished and its duties, for reasons of economy are given to an existing officer or office. | |||||
|
2009-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Finally, petitioner asserts that, contrary to respondent's position, there is no vested property right to be re-employed in a reorganized office, following National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration v. Civil Service Commission.[7] | |||||
|
2007-04-02 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Respondent cannot claim any right against, or damage or injury that he is bound to suffer from, the issuance of the preventive suspension order in question, in the light of the unbending rule that there is no such thing as a vested right or an estate in an office, or even an absolute right to hold it.[9] Public Office is not property but a "public trust or agency."[10] While due process may be relied upon by public officials to protect their security of tenure which, in a limited sense, is analogous to property, such fundamental right to security of tenure cannot be invoked against a preventive suspension order which is a preventive measure, not imposed as a penalty.[11] | |||||
|
2006-06-27 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| A public office is not a property within the context of the due process guarantee of the Constitution. There is no such thing as a vested interest in a public office, let alone an absolute right to hold it. Except constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in a public office or its salary.[12] It is only when salary has already been earned or accrued that said salary becomes private property and entitled to the protection of due process. | |||||