This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In Hon. Constantino-David et. al. v. Pangandaman-Gania,[49] an En Banc decision, we clarified the application of City Warden of the Manila City Jail v. Estrella,[50] and held that this case does not give the OSG the license to sign the certification against forum shopping in behalf of government agencies at all times. We explained that the reason we authorized the Solicitor General to sign the certification against forum shopping is because it was then acting as a 'People's Tribune,' an instance when the Solicitor takes a position adverse and contrary to the Government's because it is incumbent upon him to present to the Court what he considers would legally uphold government's best interest, although the position may run counter to a client's position; in this case, the Solicitor General appealed the trial court's order despite the City Warden's apparent acquiesance to it and in the process took a position contrary to the City Warden's. | |||||
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The fact that the OSG under the 1987 Administrative Code is the only lawyer for a government agency wanting to file a petition or complaint does not automatically vest the OSG with the authority to execute in its name the certificate of non-forum shopping for a client office. In some instances, these government agencies have legal departments which inadvertently take legal matters requiring court representation into their own hands without the OSG's intervention. Consequently, the OSG would have no personal knowledge of the history of a particular case so as to adequately execute the certificate of non-forum shopping; and even if the OSG does have the relevant information, the courts on the other hand would have no way of ascertaining the accuracy of the OSG's assertion without precise references in the record of the case. Thus, unless equitable circumstances which are manifest from the record of a case prevail, it becomes necessary for the concerned government agency or its authorized representatives to certify for non-forum shopping if only to be sure that no other similar case or incident is pending before any other court.[51] | |||||
|
2013-04-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| (a) allege under oath the circumstances that make signatures of the concerned officials impossible to obtain within the period for filing the initiatory pleading; (b) append to the petition or complaint such authentic document to prove that the party-petitioner or complainant authorized the filing of the petition or complaint and understood and adopted the allegations set forth therein, and an affirmation that no action or claim involving the same issues has been filed or commenced in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency; and, (c) undertake to inform the court promptly and reasonably of any change in the stance of the client agency.[52] | |||||
|
2012-08-29 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| At the minimum, Exhibit Q, Exhibit R, Exhibit Q-1 and Exhibit R-1 substantially met the requirements of Section 24 and Section 25 of Rule 132 as a condition for their admission as evidence in default of a showing by petitioner that the authentication process was tainted with bad faith. Consequently, the objective of ensuring the authenticity of the documents prior to their admission as evidence was substantially achieved. In Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania,[23] the Court has said that substantial compliance, by its very nature, is actually inadequate observance of the requirements of a rule or regulation that are waived under equitable circumstances in order to facilitate the administration of justice, there being no damage or injury caused by such flawed compliance. | |||||
|
2010-03-13 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania[27] likewise sustained the CSC when it modified an otherwise final and executory resolution and awarded backwages to the respondent, in the interest of justice and fair play. The Court stated - | |||||
|
2005-09-23 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In a surfeit of cases, this Court has held that quasi-judicial bodies like the CSC are better-equipped in handling cases involving the employment status of employees as those in the Civil Service since it is within the field of their expertise.[38] This is consistent with the powers and functions of the CSC, being the central personnel agency of the Government, to carry into effect the provisions of the Civil Service Law and other pertinent laws,[39] including, in this case, P.D. No. 198. | |||||
|
2005-06-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| As to the payment of the back salaries of Olegario, we find our ruling in Constantino-David, et al. vs. Pangandaman-Gania[16] applicable. There, we held that if the illegal dismissal, including the refusal to reinstate an employee after a finding of unlawful termination, is found to have been made in bad faith or due to personal malice of the superior officers then they will be held personally accountable for the employee's back salaries; otherwise, the government disburses funds to answer for such arbitrary dismissal.[17] In the present case, while Olegario was not dismissed, Peralta nonetheless, barred her from reporting for work. Moreover, Peralta unjustifiably refused to reinstate or allow her to report back to work despite the order of reinstatement issued by the CSC Regional Office. Hence, Peralta should be made liable for the salary of Olegario from April 1, 1995, which was the date of effectivity of Peralta's memorandum of March 23, 1995, until July 21, 1995, when Peralta issued another memorandum directing Olegario to report back to work. | |||||
|
2005-05-09 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| An illegally dismissed government employee who is later ordered reinstated is entitled to backwages and other monetary benefits from the time of her illegal dismissal up to her reinstatement. This is only fair and just because an employee who is reinstated after having been illegally dismissed is considered as not having left her office and should be given the corresponding compensation at the time of her reinstatement.[22] | |||||