Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARTIN S. EMIN v. CHAIRMAN CORAZON ALMA G. DE LEON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 183678 2010-03-15	RENE VENTENILLA PUSE v. LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner's reliance on the cases of Emin v. De Leon [23] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Estandarte [24] to support his claim that it was the DepEd Investigating Committee created pursuant to Rep. Act No. 4670 which had jurisdiction to try him because he is a public school teacher, is without merit as these cases are not in point. In Emin, the issue was which between the DepEd Investigating Committee (under Rep. Act No. 4670) and the CSC (under P.D. No. 807) had jurisdiction to try the administrative case, while in Estandarte, the issue was which between the Office of the Ombudsman and the DepEd Investigating Committee had jurisdiction over the administrative case filed in said case. In contrast, the instant case involves the Board of Professional Teachers which, under Rep. Act No. 7836, had jurisdiction over administrative cases against professional teachers and has the power to suspend and revoke a licensed teacher's certificate of registration after due proceedings.
	GR No. 167711 2008-10-10	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. RAMON C. GALICIA REYES, R.T., J.
In the same manner, the recent Estandarte case recognized similar circumstances cited in Emin v. De Leon.[31] In De Leon, it was found that the parties were afforded their right to due process when both fully participated in the proceedings before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). The Court ruled that while jurisdiction lies with the School Superintendent, respondent is estopped from attacking the proceedings before the CSC.
	GR No. 167916 2008-08-26	SARAH P. AMPONG v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION REYES, R.T., J.
Under the principle of estoppel, a party may not be permitted to adopt a different theory on appeal to impugn the court's jurisdiction.[28] In Emin v. De Leon,[29] this Court sustained the exercise of jurisdiction by the CSC, while recognizing at the same time that original disciplinary jurisdiction over public school teachers belongs to the appropriate committee created for the purpose as provided for under the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.[30] It was there held that a party who fully participated in the proceedings before the CSC and was accorded due process is estopped from subsequently attacking its jurisdiction.
	AM NO. CA-05-18-P 2005-04-12	ZALDY NUEZ v. ELVIRA CRUZ-APAO PER CURIAM
Under Section 2, Rule 11 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence, "Ephemeral electronic communications shall be proven by the testimony of a person who was a party to the same or who has personal knowledge thereof . . . ." In this case, complainant who was the recipient of said messages and therefore had personal knowledge thereof testified on their contents and import. Respondent herself admitted that the cellphone number reflected in complainant's cellphone from which the messages originated was hers.[66] Moreover, any doubt respondent may have had as to the admissibility of the text messages had been laid to rest when she and her counsel signed and attested to the veracity of the text messages between her and complainant.[67] It is also well to remember that in administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied.[68] We have no doubt as to the probative value of the text messages as evidence in determining the guilt or lack thereof of respondent in this case.
	GR NO. 140079 2005-03-31	AUGUSTO R. SAMALIO v. CA CORONA, J.
Further, administrative bodies are not bound by the technical niceties of law and procedure and the rules obtaining in courts of law.[8] Administrative tribunals exercising quasi-judicial powers are unfettered by the rigidity of certain procedural requirements, subject to the observance of fundamental and essential requirements of due process in justiciable cases presented before them.[9] In administrative proceedings, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense.[10]
	GR No. 156063 2003-11-18	MELECIO ALCALA v. JOVENCIO VILLAR YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Likewise, in Emin v. De Leon,[15] the Court ruled that although under Presidential Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Law), the civil service embraces every branch, agency, subdivision, and instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations whether performing governmental or proprietary function, the Civil Service Commission does not have original jurisdiction over an administrative case against a public school teacher. It was stressed therein that jurisdiction over administrative cases of public school teachers is lodged with the Investigating Committee created pursuant to Section 9 of R.A. No. 4670, now being implemented by Section 2, Chapter VII of DECS Order No. 33, S. 1999, otherwise known as the DECS Rules of Procedure.[16]