This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| As a final note, it must be borne in mind that a PDS is a public document[49] required of a government employee and official by the CSC. It is the repository of all information about any government employee or official regarding his personal background, qualification, and eligibility. Government employees are tasked under the Civil Service rules to properly and completely accomplish their PDS,[50] in accordance with the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust, thereby enjoining all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[51] Only those who can live up to such exacting standard deserve the honor of continuing in public service.[52] | |||||
|
2014-07-18 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It is doctrinally entrenched that appeal is not a constitutional right, but a mere statutory privilege. Hence, parties who seek to avail themselves of it must comply with the statutes or rules allowing it.[15] The rule is that failure to file or perfect an appeal within the reglementary period will make the judgment final and executory by operation of law. Perfection of an appeal within the statutory or reglementary period is not only mandatory but also jurisdictional; failure to do so renders the questioned decision/resolution final and executory, and deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction to alter the decision/resolution, much less to entertain the appeal.[16] Filing of an appeal beyond the reglementary period may, under meritorious cases, be excused if the barring of the appeal would be inequitable and unjust in light of certain circumstances therein.[17] | |||||
|
2012-07-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Here, the Ombudsman found respondents guilty of the charges filed against them and imposed upon them the penalty of dismissal from the service. The penalty of dismissal is a severe punishment, because it blemishes a person's record in government service.[38] It is an injury to one's reputation and honor which produces irreversible effects on one's career and private life. Worse, it implies loss of livelihood to the employee and his family.[39] If only to assure the judicial mind that no injustice is allowed to take place due to a blind adherence to rules of procedure, the dismissal on technicality of respondents' petition, which is aimed at establishing not just their innocence but the truth, cannot stand. [40] | |||||
|
2012-06-19 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Dissatisfied with the adverse rulings of Quedancor and the CSC, the respondent elevated his case to the CA which adjudged him guilty of dishonesty, but modified the penalty of dismissal to one (1) year suspension from office without pay. The CA cited the case of Miel v. Malindog[5] as supporting basis and relied on Section 53, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases (Uniform Rules) which allows the appreciation of mitigating circumstances in the determination of the proper imposable penalty. The CA took into account the following mitigating circumstances: (1) the respondent's length of service of 18 years; (2) the prompt admission of culpability; (3) the return of the money; and (4) the respondent's status as a first time offender. | |||||