This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-06-10 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The phrase, "person adversely affected," was not defined in either Presidential Decree No. 807 or the Administrative Code. This prompted a series of cases[46] providing the interpretation of this phrase. | |||||
|
2014-06-10 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The first of these cases, Paredes v. Civil Service Commission,[47] declared: Based on [Sections 37 (a) and 39 (a) of Presidential Decree No. 807], appeal to the Civil Service Commission in an administrative case is extended to the party adversely affected by the decision, that is, the person or the respondent employee who has been meted out the penalty of suspension for more than thirty days; or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. The decision of the disciplining authority is even final and not appealable to the Civil Service Commission in cases where the penalty imposed is suspension for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding thirty days salary.[48] (Emphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2010-02-26 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| But, although the law vests in the department or agency concerned the responsibility for establishing, administering, and maintaining its qualification standards, such standards have to be drawn with the assistance and approval of the CSC and in consultation with the Wage and Position Classification Office.[6] The Court's ruling in the 2007 Ombudsman case affirms this.[7] The CSC approval is still a must since it remains the government's clearing house for all appointments in the civil service. The duty to enforce the laws on the selection, promotion, and discipline of civil servants primarily rests in the CSC. Once approved, the qualification standards serve as guide for new appointments and for adjudicating contested appointments.[8] | |||||
|
2010-02-26 |
ABAD, J. |
||||
| The reliance on Paredes v. Civil Service Commission[22] is misplaced that case did not involve an independent constitutional body. | |||||
|
2009-07-07 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Aquino, who initiated the complaint against petitioner, has not shown culpable negligence that would warrant the dismissal of his complaint. As pointed out by the Solicitor General in his Comment filed with this Court, records show that Aquino appeared at the clarificatory hearing called by the EPIB.[13] He even brought to the attention of the proper authorities petitioner's misconduct. Likewise, the CA noted that respondent had not manifested a lack of interest to prosecute. Besides, in an administrative case, the complainant, like Aquino, is a mere witness. No private interest is involved in an administrative case as the offense is committed against the government.[14] Thus, his absence in two hearings is not a ground for the dismissal of the case against petitioner. | |||||