Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EMMANUEL A. DE CASTRO v. EMERSON S. CARLOS

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 172902 2015-10-21	RAMON IKE V. SEÑERES v. DELFIN JAY M. SABIDO IX LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
For a position to be considered as CES, two elements are required, namely: (a) The position is among those enumerated under Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 2, Section 7(3) of the Administrative Code of 1987 or a position of equal rank as those enumerated and identified by the CESB to be such position of equal rank; and (b) The holder of the position is a presidential appointee.[32]
	GR No. 187836 2014-11-25	SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY OFFICERS v. ALFREDO S. LIM PEREZ, J.
Expressing the same position, former Mayor Lim even went to the extent of detailing the steps[123] he took prior to the signing of the Ordinance, if only to show his honest intention to make the right decision.
	GR No. 181760 2014-10-14	ATTY. ANACLETO B. BUENA v. DR. SANGCAD D. BENITO LEONEN, J.
Aside from satisfying the criteria set by the Career Executive Service Board, the holder of the position must also be a presidential appointee.[76]
	GR No. 181760 2014-10-14	ATTY. ANACLETO B. BUENA v. DR. SANGCAD D. BENITO LEONEN, J.
Permanent appointment to positions in the Career Executive Service presupposes that the appointee has passed the Career Executive Service examinations.[84] In this case, respondent Dr. Benito does not possess the required career executive service eligibility. He, therefore, cannot be appointed to the position of Assistant Schools Division Superintendent in a permanent capacity. The Civil Service Commission cannot be compelled to attest to the permanent appointment of respondent Dr. Benito.
	GR Nos. 197942-43 2014-03-26	PHILIPPINE AMUSEMENT v. THUNDERBIRD PILIPINAS HOTELS REYES, J.
At their roots, these petitions deal with the manner PAGCOR has exercised its licensing and regulatory powers over the respondent casino operators. The Court sees no novel issues of transcendental importance to justify its action of skipping the hierarchy of the courts and coming directly to us via certiorari petition. As explained in Emmanuel A. De Castro v. Emerson S. Carlos,[68] although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not exclusive but concurrent with that of the CA and RTC. The petitioner has no unrestricted freedom of choice of forum, but must strictly observe the hierarchy of the courts.