Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CASE DIGESTS
CSC v. Sojor
May 22, 2008
Reyes
alycat
SUMMARY:Sojor was appointed President of Central Visayas
Polytechnic College by the universitys Board of Trustees.
When he was administratively charged, Sojor argued that he
was a presidential appointee, hence, not subject to the
jurisdiction of the CSC. The CSC dismissed this argument,
but it was sustained by the CA. The SC reversed the CA and
upheld the CSC, ruling that The CSC has jurisdiction over
Sojors case.
x
DOCTRINE:The CSC has been granted jurisdiction over all
civil service positions in the government service, whether
career or non-career. The Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Rules) spells
out the specific jurisdiction of the regional office and the
Commission itself. All members of the civil service are under
the jurisdiction of the CSC, unless otherwise provided.
FACTS:
x
x
1
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
RATIO:
On the jurisdiction of the CSC and CSC Regional
Offices
The CSC has been granted jurisdiction over all civil service
positions in the government service, whether career or noncareer. The Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service (CSC Rules) spells out the specific
jurisdiction of the regional office and the Commission itself.
Sec. 4: Except as otherwise provided by the Constitution or by law, the Civil
Service Commission shall have the final authority to pass upon the
removal, separation, and suspension of all officers and employees in the
civil service and upon all matters relating to the conduct, discipline and
efficiency of such officers and employees.
Sec. 5: The CSC shall have jurisdiction over the following cases:
x
Disciplinary Complaints against Civil Service officials and
employees which are not acted upon by the agencies, and such
other complaints requiring direct or immediate action
x
Non-disciplinary Decisions of the CSC Regional Offices brought
before it
Sec. 6.: The CSC Regional Offices shall have jurisdiction over the following
cases:
x
Disciplinary Complaints initiated by, or brought before, the Civil
Service Commission Regional Offices provided that the alleged
acts or omissions were committed within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Office
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
Geronga v. Varela
February 22, 2008
Austria-Martinez, J.
Oswald P. Imbat
SUMMARY: Geronga, Engineer IV employed by Cadiz City,
was subjected to two administrative cases. Upon two
Recommendations of dismissal of the City Legal Officer
respecting the two cases, Mayor Varela dismissed Geronga,
who incorporated the Recommendations in a Memorandum
sent to the latter. Geronga filed a notice of appeal with the
CSC, assailing his dismissal as embodied in the
Memorandum. In his memorandum before the CSC,
however, he only discussed one case. The CSC ruled in
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
RUBENECIA v. CSC
May 31, 1995
Justice Feliciano
tecskat
SUMMARY:
Rubenecia was charged in an admin case. While his case
was pending before the MSPB, the CSC issued a Resolution
which provided that cases pending before the MSPB were to
be elevated to the CSC for decision. Rubenecia questioned
the power of the CSC to do so. The Court held that the MSPB
may be the subject of organizational change implemented
by the CSC. The functions of the MSPB relating to the
determination of administrative disciplinary cases were reallocated to the Commission itself. The purpose of the
Resolution is to "streamline the operation of the CSC"
DOCTRINE:
The 1987 Admin Code made it clear that MSPB was intended
to be an office of the CSC. It is not an autonomous entity.
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
RUBENECIAs ARGUMENTS:
1. CSC has no jurisdiction over the admin case
because Res 93-2387 is invalid. Since the MSPB was a
creation of la then it could only be abolished by law.
2. Denied due process.
ISSUES:
1. WON the CSC had authority to issue Res 93-2387
and assume jurisdiction over the admin case.-YES
2. WON Rubenecia was denied due process.-NO
RATIO:
ISSUE 1:
1. The MSPB was originally created by PD 1409 as the Merit
Systems Board. It was composed of a commissioner and 2
associate commissioners appointed by the CSC.
2. PD 1409 had "created in the Civil Service Commission the
Merit Systems Board." Section 16 of the present Civil Service
Law found in the 1987 Administrative Code followed the
same line and re-created the Merit Systems Board as an
office of the Commission and gave it a new name: Merit
System Protection Board.
3. The 1987 Admin Code made it clear that MSPB was
intended to be an office of the CSC. It is not an
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
QUIMBO vs GERVACIO
August 9, 2005
CARPIO-MORALES, J.
Mica Maurinne M. Adao
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
10
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
11
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
that she has a son. On the contrary, she claims that she is
single. A preventive suspension order was issued. Pelio
assailed such order before the Court of Appeals. The CA
issued a TRO against the preventive suspension order. The
issue resolved by the SC is whether or not the Ombudsman
issued the preventive suspension order with GAD. The SC
held that the Ombudsman correctly issued the preventive
suspension order because the evidence of guilt is strong.
DOCTRINE: For a Preventive Suspension Order to be
issued, what the law requires is merely that, first, the
evidence of guilt must be strong; and second, that at least
any one of the three circumstances (1) that the charge
involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or
neglect in the performance of duty; (2) that the charge
warrants removal from the service; or (3) that the
respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case
filed against him is present.
FACTS:
1. Beatriz Pelio (PELIO) is the head of the BIR Large
Taxpayers Document Processing and Quality Assurance
Division, while Joseph Albert Pelio Cuaki (CUAKI) appears
on record as PELIOs son by one Alfonso Cuaki (Alfonso).
CUAKIs birth certificate listed PELIO and Alfonso as his
parents.
2. On May 11, 2005, the Field Investigation Office of the
Office of the Ombudsman filed a complaint against Beatriz
Pelio (PELIO) and Joseph Albert Pelio Cuaki (CUAKI) for
violation of the following laws.
a. Eighteen counts of perjury under Art. 183, RPC, for
not making a true detailed SALN;
b. RA 6713, in regard to the filing of SALN;
c. Dishonest and grave misconduct under EO 292, as
amended by CSC Circular No. 19
d. RA 1379, for alleged unexplained wealth
12
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
Property/
PELIOs
Supreme
SECTION 24.
Preventive Suspension. The Ombudsman or his
Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under
his authority pending an investigation, if in his judgment the
evidence of guilt is strong, and (a) the charge against such officer
or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct
or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charges would
warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's
continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.
The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is
terminated by the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than six
months, without pay, except when the delay in the disposition of
the case by the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault,
negligence or petition of the respondent, in which case the period
of such delay shall not be counted in computing the period of
suspension herein provided. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
13
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
Document
involved
1.
Birth
certificate showing
PELIO as Cuakis
parent.
2.
Valle
Verde Residence
Defense
(why
they were not
included in the
SALN; why there
was no forgery)
- In 1985,
CUAKI was brought
by Alfonso to her
home.
CUAKIs
father
was
the
business buddy of
Alfonso and that the
baby
was
abandoned in the
hospital.
- It was
made to appear in
the birth certificate
that
PELIO
and
Alfonso
were
married and that the
boy was their son;
but
she
never
signed
the
birth
certificate.
Her
signature
in
the
birth certificate is a
forgery.
- Alfonso
finally admitted that
CUAKIs father is
Henry Go, former
Vice Chairman of
Universal
Robina
Corporation.
-funds
provided by Henry
Go
- while it
Courts
Determination
- Alfonso
and
PELIO
are
CUAKIs parents, as
the birth certificate
shows.
Although
PELIO claims that it
was forged, the said
document subsists
and has not been
voided.
- Being a
public
document,
the birth certificate
offers prima facie
evidence of foliation.
No
evidence
adduced
to
overthrow
the
presumption.
-This
being the case, the
SC cannot consider
PELIOs claim that
she
used
the
amount
she
allegedly
received
from Go (which was
intended for CUAKI)
to
acquire
the
properties
in
numbers 1 to 6 and
to
finance
their
yearly trips abroad.
3.
San
Juan Condomonium
4. House
and lot in Tagaytay
5.
Fuego pickup
6.
Isuzu
Toyota
RAV4
7.
Funds
for their yearly trips
abroad
PELIO
admitted that she is
one
of
the
contributors,
thus
making her a coowner
of
the
property. She should
have declared the
extent
of
her
interest therein in
her SALN.
14
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
9.
Residential lot
Tanza, Cavite
in
10. Lots in
Naic, Cavite and
agricultural land in
Tanza, Cavite
11.
Investment in Israel
Armour Philippines,
Inc.
- She is a
mere trustee of one
Sesinanda, to whom
she lent P 50, 000.
Property served as
collateral.
- she holds
in in trust for the
real owners
- she was
a mere nominee,
with
no
genuine
interest
in
the
financial success of
the said corporation
PELIO
obtained title by
foreclosing on the
property,
based
upon her admission
that the owner owed
her money.
-If
the
property constituted
mere collateral, then
it would have been
unnecessary
to
place the same in
PELIOs name; a
mortgage
deed
would have sufficed.
This
should have been
declared in the SALN
- There is
no trust document
or
the
written
statement
or
explanation of any
one of the heirs of
the real owners to
show
that
she
merely holds the
property in trust.
- If PELIO
is a mere nominee,
there should be a
document to show
this fact. But there
was none.
- As far as
the
law
is
concerned, PELIO
is
the
declared
owner
of
the
investment.
Her
interest
therein
should be declared
in her SALN.
15
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
Gobenciong v. CA
March 31, 2008
Velasco, Jr., J.
Jadd Sakuragi Dealino
Sorry for the late digest. I dont know what specific topic this falls
under. For reciting the facts, the summary should be sufficient.
16
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
FACTS:
Parties:
o Petitioner: Dr. Pedro Gobenciong
Administrative Officer 4 of a public hospital in
Tacloban (The Eastern Visayas Regional Medical
Center)
o Respondents:
Court of Appeals
Deputy Ombudsman Visayas
Dr. Flora Dela Pea
Head of the hospitals Laboratory Unit
The hospital issued a Requisition and Issue Voucher for a
hemoanalyzer/particle
counter,
containing
the
specifications and handwritten unit price quotation
(P1.195998M)
Alvez Commercial Inc. (Alvez) was the best bidder at
the public bidding, and a Purchase Order was issued for
the hemoanalyzer.
According to the hospital documents, the hemoanalyzer
was delivered on December 20, 1996. The hospital
documents involved are:
o Certification of Acceptance Signed by Engr. Jose
Jocano and Crisologo Babula
o Sales Invoice Signed by Babula
o Commission on Audit Inspection Report Signed by
Jocano and Gobenciong
December 26, 1996: The Disbursement Voucher for the
hemoanalyzer was prepared.
17
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
18
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
ISSUES:
1) Whether the Ombudsmans preventive suspension was
immediately executory despite Gobenciongs MR against
it.
2) Whether the Ombudsmans disciplinary power is merely
recommendatory, excluding the authority to ensure
compliance of its recommendations.
3) Whether the Ombudsman Act is unconstitutional for
being an undue delegation of legislative authority, and
violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
RULING:
1) Yes.
2) No.
3) No.
RATIO:
1) Yes, the Ombudsmans Preventive Suspension Order is
immediately
executory
despite
a
Motion
for
Reconsideration against it.
A) There is no repeal by implication.
1) General Rule: Repeals by implication are not
favored.
a) Rationale: Laws presumptively passed w/ full
knowledge of extant legislation on the same
subject.
2) Exception: Inconsistency, the earlier act being so
repugnant as to be irreconcilable w/ the later one.
(Citing
Dipidio
Earth-Savers
Multi-Purpose
Association, Incorporated, v. Gozun, 2006)
B) The pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act and
the Ombudsman Rules of Procedure regarding
3
19
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
20
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
are immediately
and executory.
effective
21
PUBOFF | B2015
CASE DIGESTS
require
22