Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RODOLFO S. DE JESUS v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 166495 2011-02-16	ROQUE C. FACURA v. CA MENDOZA, J.
In its Resolution denying the motions for reconsideration filed by Facura, Tuazon and De Jesus, the CA ruled, among others, that the case of De Jesus v. Sandiganbayan[32] could not be used as basis to absolve administrative liability, as the present case was not limited solely to falsification and preparation of the two sets of appointment papers. The CA found that De Jesus failed to comply with CSC rules due to his failure to submit the first set of appointment papers to the CSC. Dishonesty was found present when De Jesus submitted the first set of appointment papers to the DBM and the second set to CSC to comply with reportorial requirements, ensuring that the DBM was unaware of what the CSC was doing and vice versa. The CSC resolutions dismissing the complaint against De Jesus were found to have no bearing as the dismissal case was already before the CSC for resolution when De Jesus affixed his signature. Thus, De Jesus had no authority to sign the appointment papers and by doing so, he defied the CSC directive recalling his reinstatement. Violation of CSC rules on appointment was found to be distinct from misrepresentation of authority to sign appointment papers.
	GR No. 180314 2009-04-16	NORMALLAH A. PACASUM v. PEOPLE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
On 29 May 2002, petitioner filed a Motion for Reinvestigation asking that she be given the opportunity to file her counter-affidavit during a preliminary investigation in order that her right to due process would not be violated.[5] Petitioner further filed an Urgent Motion for Preliminary Investigation and/or Reinvestigation with a Prayer to Recall or Defer Issuance of Warrant of Arrest.[6]
	GR No. 150611 2003-06-10	JACINTO SAGUID v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
SO ORDERED.[17] On appeal, said decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals; however, the award of P50,000.00 as moral damages was deleted for lack of basis.[18] The appellate court ruled that the propriety of the order which declared the petitioner as in default became moot and academic in view of the effectivity of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. It explained that the new rules now require the filing of a pre-trial brief and the defendant's non-compliance therewith entitles the plaintiff to present evidence ex parte.