Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CARLOS R. GONZALES v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 187854 2013-11-12	RAY PETER O. VIVO v. PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT BERSAMIN, J.
In any event, any procedural defect in the proceedings taken against the petitioner was cured by his filing of the motion for reconsideration and by his appealing the adverse result to the CSC. The Court held in Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission[27] that any defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who was afforded the opportunity to be heard. In Autencio v. Mañara,[28] the Court observed that defects in procedural due process may be cured when the party has been afforded the opportunity to appeal or to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.
	GR No. 193676 2012-06-20	COSMOS BOTTLING CORP. v. WILSON FERMIN SERENO, J.
It must be noted that in the case at bar, all the lower tribunals were in agreement that Fermin's act of taking Braga's cellphone amounted to theft. Factual findings made by administrative agencies, if established by substantial evidence as borne out by the records, are final and binding on this Court, whose jurisdiction is limited to reviewing questions of law.[25] The only disputed issue left for resolution is whether the imposition of the penalty of dismissal was appropriate. We rule in the affirmative.
	GR No. 173339 2010-11-24	LEDESCO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. WORLDWIDE STANDARD INTERNATIONAL REALTY MENDOZA, J.
After going over the records, the Court finds no cogent reason to disturb the findings of the CA on the matter of WSIRI's claim for commissions. As this Court has ruled in a long line of cases, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law imputed to the lower court, the latter's findings of fact being conclusive and not reviewable by this Court.[43]
	GR No. 168668 2009-12-16	PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY v. PEARL CITY MANUFACTURING COROPORATION PERALTA, J.
In any event, the Court agrees with petitioners that any procedural defect in the proceedings before the PEZA Board was cured when the PCMC appealed PEZA Board Resolution No. 04-236 before the OP. Petitioners were also able to move for the reconsideration of the adverse ruling of the OP. In Autencio v. Mañara,[22] the Court ruled that where the party has the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured. Likewise, in Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission,[23] the Court ruled that any seeming defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard thereon.
	GR No. 173865 2008-08-20	FACT-FINDING v. J. FERNANDO U. CAMPAÑA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Length of service is an alternative circumstance which can mitigate or possibly even aggravate the penalty, depending on the circumstances of the case.[22] Section 53, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grants the disciplining authority the discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty.[23] The same rule underlines the circumstances which mitigate the penalty, such as length of service in the government, physical illness, good faith, education, or other analogous circumstances. In several cases,[24] this Court has mitigated the imposable penalty for humanitarian reasons and considered respondent's length of service in the government and his good faith. In several cases, we refrained from imposing the extreme penaltyof dismissalfromtheservice where the erring employee had not been previouslycharged with anadministrative offense.[25] In a catena[26] of cases, this Court has taken into consideration the presence of mitigating circumstances and lowered the penalty of dismissal imposed on respondent.[27]
	GR No. 161910 2008-06-17	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. MA. REGINA I. SAMSON YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In any event, the Court agrees with petitioners that any procedural defect in the proceedings before the DAR was cured when Samson appealed before the Office of the President. In Gonzales v. Civil Service Commission,[28] the Court ruled that any seeming defect in the observance of due process is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration and that denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard thereon.[29] Likewise, in Autencio v. City Administrator Mañara and the City of Cotabato,[30]the Court ruled that where the party has the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of, defects in procedural due process may be cured.[31] It should be noted that although the March 4, 1998 ruling of the DAR had attained finality, the Office of the President still entertained respondents' appeal thus giving them the opportunity to be heard.
	GR NO. 153188 2007-08-14	JERRYBELLE L. BUNSAY v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
This brings the Court to the corollary question: whether petitioners sufficiently proved that they rendered work as would entitle them to back pay. This question being purely evidentiary, the findings of public respondent on the matter are ordinarily binding.[41]