Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROGELIO A. TRIA v. CHAIRMAN PATRICIA A. STO. TOMAS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR Nos. 165399 and 165475 2011-05-30	THERON V. LACSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY MENDOZA, J.
The tenurial protection accorded to a civil servant is a guaranty of both procedural and substantive due process. Procedural due process requires that the dismissal, when warranted, be effected only after notice and hearing. On the other hand, substantive due process requires, among others, that the dismissal be for legal cause, which must relate to and effect the administration of the office of which the concerned employee is a member of and must be restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the rights and interests of the public.[33]
	GR No. 183337 2010-04-23	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. GREGORIO MAGNAYE MENDOZA, J.
Moreover, Magnaye was denied due process. We ruled in Tria v. Chairman Patricia Sto. Tomas [24] that the prohibition in Article IX (B) (2) (3) of the Constitution against dismissal of a civil service officer or employee "except for cause provided by law" is a guaranty of both procedural and substantive due process. Procedural due process requires that the dismissal comes only after notice and hearing,[25] while substantive due process requires that the dismissal be "for cause."[26]
	GR No. 157607 2009-07-07	LAND BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. ROWENA O. PADEN BRION, J.
The constitutional guaranty of security of tenure in the civil service has two legal ramifications. In Tria v. Chairman Patricia Sto. Tomas, et al.,[21] we held that the prohibition against suspension or dismissal of an officer or employee of the Civil Service "except for cause provided by law" is "a guaranty of both procedural and substantive due process." "Not only must removal or suspension be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law, but also they can only be made on the basis of a valid cause provided by law."[22]
	GR No. 173264 2008-02-22	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. NITA P. JAVIER AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This doctrine in Piñero was reiterated in several succeeding cases.[29]
	GR No. 173264 2008-02-22	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. NITA P. JAVIER AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In classifying a position as primarily confidential, its functions must not be routinary, ordinary and day to day in character.[42] A position is not necessarily confidential though the one in office may sometimes handle confidential matters or documents.[43] Only ordinary confidence is required for all positions in the bureaucracy. But, as held in De los Santos,[44] for someone holding a primarily confidential position, more than ordinary confidence is required.
	GR NO. 160502 2007-04-27	TANJAY WATER DISTRICT v. CESAR A. QUINIT CALLEJO, SR., J.
Indeed, no officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause provided by law.[30] The phrase "cause provided by law," however, includes "loss of confidence."[31] It is an established rule that the tenure of those holding primarily confidential positions ends upon loss of confidence, because their term of office lasts only as long as confidence in them endures.[32] Their termination can be justified on the ground of loss of confidence, in which case, their cessation from office involves no removal but the expiration of their term of office.[33]