This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-11-23 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| In another case, the Court addressed a similar contention by stating that the petitioner therein could not argue that she had been deprived of due process merely because no cross-examination took place. [Citing Casimiro v. Tandog, 459 SCRA 624, 633 (2005)]. Indeed, in administrative proceedings, due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or given opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[22] | |||||
|
2010-09-07 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| It is true that the CSCRO IV, the CSC, and the CA gave credence to petitioner's uncounselled statements and, partly on the basis thereof, uniformly found petitioner liable for the charge of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and falsification of official document.[15] | |||||
|
2008-03-14 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| On the other hand, in Donato v. Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. 1,[4] Alejandro Donato, Jr. was charged with dishonesty and falsification of public documents for representing himself as Gil Arce and taking the civil service exam under that name. The CSC and the Court of Appeals both found that the picture of Donato appeared on the Picture Seat Plan on top of the name Gil Arce. On the other hand, Arce admitted that he might have mistakenly submitted Donato's picture during the exam. The Court rejected Donato's claim that the case was merely the handiwork of his former principal who allegedly had an axe to grind against him in the face of positive evidence against him and Arce. Accordingly, the Court upheld the dismissal of both Arce and Donato. | |||||