Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS v. CELSO M. PALER

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 194192 2015-06-16	DAVAO CITY WATER DISTRICT v. RODRIGO L. ARANJUEZ PEREZ, J.
Substantial justice, in other words must prevail. In Paler,[34] We said:When substantial justice dictates it, procedural rules may be relaxed in order to arrive at a just disposition of a case. The purpose behind limiting the period of appeal is to avoid unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and to put an end to controversies. A one-day delay as in this case, does not justify denial of the appeal where there is absolutely no indication of intent to delay as in this case, does not justify denial of the appeal where there is absolutely no indication of intent to delay justice on the pail of Paler and the pleading is meritorious on its face.
	GR No. 198682 2013-04-10	FRANCISCO C. ADALIM v. ERNESTO TANINAS CARPIO, J.
At the outset, Adalim assails the CSC's liberal application of its rules. In a number of cases, we upheld the CSC's decision relaxing its procedural rules to render substantial justice.[14] The Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service themselves provide that administrative investigations shall be conducted without strict recourse to the technical rules of procedure and evidence applicable to judicial proceedings.[15] The case before the CSC involves the security of tenure of public employees protected by the Constitution.[16] Public interest requires a resolution of the merits of the appeal instead of dismissing the same based on a rigid application of the CSC Rules of Procedure.[17] Accordingly, both the CSC and the CA properly allowed respondent employees' appeal despite procedural lapses to resolve the issue on the merits.
	GR No. 193773 2013-04-02	TERESITA L. SALVA v. FLAVIANA M. VALLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In Commission on Appointments v. Paler,[24] this Court likewise sustained the CSC when it entertained a belated appeal in the interest of substantial justice. We thus held: We agree with the CSC. We uphold its decision to relax the procedural rules because Paler's appeal was meritorious. This is not the first time that the Court has upheld such exercise of discretion. In Rosales, Jr. v. Mijares involving Section 49(a) of the CSC Revised Rules of Procedure, the Court ruled:
	AM No. P-11-2927 2011-12-13	LEAVE DIVISION v. WILMA SALVACION P. HEUSDENS MENDOZA, J.
Applying this provision, the Court held in the case of Commission on Appointments v. Paler[17] that an employee could not be considered absent without leave since his application was deemed approved. In said case, there was no action on his application within five (5) working days from receipt thereof.[18]
	AM No. P-11-2927 2011-12-13	LEAVE DIVISION v. WILMA SALVACION P. HEUSDENS MENDOZA, J.
The OCA, in its Report[6] dated March 8, 2011, found respondent to have violated OCA Circular No. 49-2003 for failing to secure the approval of her application for travel authority.