This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-05 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The CA thus concluded that the CSC was well-within its authority when it invalidated De Guzman's appointment. It held that an appointee's title to the office does not permanently vest until the appointee complies with the legal requirements of his appointment. The requirements include the submission of the appointment to the CSC for the determination of whether the appointee qualifies to the position and whether the procedure for appointment has been properly followed. Until these requirements are complied with, his appointment may still be recalled or withdrawn by the appointing authority.[20] | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The purpose of the requirement to submit the appointment to the CSC is for the latter to approve or disapprove such appointment depending on whether the appointee possesses the appropriate eligibility or required qualifications and whether the laws and rules pertinent to the process of appointment have been followed.[40] With this in mind, respondent's appointment should all the more be deemed valid. | |||||
|
2010-02-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires that, for reasons of law, comity and convenience, where the enabling statute indicates a procedure for administrative review and provides a system of administrative appeal or reconsideration, the courts will not entertain a case unless the available administrative remedies have been resorted to and the appropriate authorities have been given an opportunity to act and correct the errors committed in the administrative forum.[22] In Orosa v. Roa,[23] the Court ruled that if an appeal or remedy obtains or is available within the administrative machinery, this should be resorted to before resort can be made to the courts.[24] While the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is subject to certain exceptions,[25] these are not present in this case. | |||||