Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MAXIMO GABRIEL v. EUFEMIO C. DOMINGO

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 185740 2013-07-23	PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMARINES NORTE v. BEATRIZ O. GONZALES BRION, J.
Citing Gabriel v. Domingo,[36] the dissenting opinion quotes our categorical declaration that "a permanent employee remains a permanent employee unless he is validly terminated[,]" and from there attempts to draw an analogy between Gabriel and the case at hand.
	GR No. 185740 2013-07-23	PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF CAMARINES NORTE v. BEATRIZ O. GONZALES BRION, J.
Citing Aquino v. Civil Service Commission,[15] the CA emphasized that an appointee acquires a legal right to his position once he assumes a position in the civil service under a completed appointment. This legal right is protected both by statute and the Constitution, and he cannot be removed from office without cause and previous notice and hearing. Appointees cannot be removed at the mere will of those vested with the power of removal, or without any cause.
	GR No. 175276 2011-05-31	ISABELO L. GALANG v. LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The controlling rule on the rate at which back salaries shall be paid was laid down by the Court as early as 1977 in the case of Balquidra v. CFI of Capiz, Branch II.[44] In said case, the Court awarded back salaries to the petitioner therein at the rate last received by him or his "original salary"[45] for five years without qualification and deduction. This means that the illegally dismissed government employee shall be paid back salaries at the rate he was receiving when he was terminated unqualified by salary increases and without deduction from earnings received elsewhere during the period of his illegal dismissal. We have invariably held so in Gementiza v. Court of Appeals,[46] Ginson v. Municipality of Murcia, et al.,[47] Gabriel v. Domingo,[48] and Del Castillo v. Civil Service Commission.[49] We find no reason to depart from the said rule in the instant case.
	GR NO. 164929 2006-04-10	ERNELIZA Z. MAMARIL v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CARPIO MORALES, J.
Petitioner, however, invokes the rulings in Tañala v. Legaspi,[33] De Guzman v. Civil Service Commission,[34] Gabriel v. Domingo,[35] Del Castillo v. Civil Service Commission[36] to the effect that when an official or employee was illegally dismissed and his reinstatement is ordered, for all legal purposes he is considered as not having left his office and, therefore, is entitled to all rights and privileges that accrue to him by virtue of the office.
	GR No. 156039 2003-08-14	KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID v. ZENAIDA D. PANGANDAMAN-GANIA BELLOSILLO, J.
In Gabriel v. Domingo[46] this Court held that an illegally dismissed government employee who is later ordered reinstated is entitled to back wages and other monetary benefits from the time of his illegal dismissal up to his reinstatement. This is only fair and sensible because an employee who is reinstated after having been illegally dismissed is considered as not having left his office and should be given a comparable compensation at the time of his reinstatement.