September 2017 - page 19

FACTS: Complainant Leonila Vistan alleged that as early as 10 Feb 1987, prior to the start of the campaign period, and while still an MTC judge, respondent Ruben Nicolas started circulating handbills/letters addressed to electoral constitutents in the second district of Bulacan indicating his intention to run for a congressional seat. ISSUE(S): Whether or not respondent judge engaged in electioneering while still an MTC judge. HELD: YES. For having held himself out as a congressional candidate while still a member of the Bench, respondent took advantage of his position to boost his candidacy, demeaned the statude of his office, and…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 03 Jul 1993, R.A. No. 7653 (the New Central Bank Act) took effect abolishing the old Central Bank and creating the BSP. On 08 Jun 2001, petitioner filed a petition prohibiting BSP and the Executive Secretary of the Office of the President from further implementing the last proviso in Section 15(c), Article II of R.A. 7653. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Supreme Court may properly rule to void a provision that has been deemed unconstitutional. HELD: YES. Under most circumstances, the Court will exercise judicial restraint in deciding questions of unconstitutionality, recognizing the borad discretion given to Congress…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 31 Jul 2002, Melchor Arthur Carandang, Paul Elmer Clemente, and Jose Tereso de Jesus, Jr. were appointed Graft Investigation Officers III of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Civil Service Commission approved such appointments on the condition that appointees must obtain CES or CSE eligibility to acquire security of tenure. Carandang and Clemente had been conferred with CSE eligibility on 06 Jun 2003. ISSUE(S): Whether or not de Jesus’ appointment may be properly changed from temporary status to permanent despite non-compliance with the eligibility requirement for the position of Graft Investigation Officer III. HELD: YES. Under P.D.No. 807,…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 05 Nov 1997, administrative charges for dishonesty, grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and loss of confidence were brought against Carlos Rilloraza, a casino operations manager of petitioner PAGCOR. On 02 Dec 1997, the PAGCOR Board issued a resolution dismissing respondent. ISSUE(S): Whether or not all PAGCOR employees are confidential employees. HELD: NO. The classification of a particular position as primarily confidential, policy-determining or highly technical amounts to no more than an executive or legislative declaration that is not conclusive upon the courts, the true test being the nature of the position. The…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 07 Oct 1989, respondent Salas was appointed by the PAGCOR chairman as internal security staff member and assigned to the casino at the Manila Pavilion Hotel. His employment was terminated by the Board of Directors of PAGCOR on 03 Dec 1991, allegedly for loss of confidence. ISSUE(S): Whether or not Salas is a confidential employee. HELD: NO. It is the nature of the position which finally determines whether a position is primarily confidential, policy-determining or highly technical. The occupant of a particular position could be considered a confidential employee if the predominant reason why he was chosen by…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Respondent Ramon S. Roco was appointed by then President Fidel V. Ramos on 26 Aug 1996 as Regional Director of the Land Transportation Office in Region V, a position equivalent to CES rank Level V. He was re-appointed to the same position by then President Joseph Estrada. From his appointment in 1996, respondent was not a CES eligible and was only conferred CES eligibility by the Career Executive Board on 13 Aug 1999. On 07 Sep 1999, petitioner Luis Mario General, who was not a CES eligible, was appointed by then President Estrada as Regional Director of LTO-V. Pursuant…

Keep Reading

FACTS: The Coconut Industry Investment Fund (CIIF) companies failed to comply with its contract agreement with the International Towage and Transport Corporation (ITTC) for the transport of coconut oil in bulk. ITTC Executive Vice President Manuel Leyson, Jr. filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for breach of contract, among others. The complaint was dismissed. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to further act on the complaint. HELD: NO. All three corporations comprising the CIIF companies were organized as stock corporations. The UCPB-CIIF owns 44.10% of the shares of Legaspi Oil, 91.24% of…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioner Baltazar Camporedondo was employed by the Philippine National Red Cross sine 1980 until his early retirement on 15 Dec 1995. On 21 Nov 1995, PNRC Secretary General Celso Samson required petitioner to restitute the total sum of P135,927.78 representing cash shortages, technical shortage and unremitted collection. On 28 May 1996, petitioner filed with the NLRC a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages and underpayment of wages against the PNRC and its key officials. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the PNRC is a government-owned and controlled corporation. HELD: YES. The PNRC is a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter…

Keep Reading

FACTS: On 04 Jun 1998, respondent Jose Ramirez filed an election protest with the COMELEC challenging the result of the 11 May 1998 elections where petitioner Ruperto Ambil, Jr. was proclaimed the duly-elected governor of Eastern Samar. On 24 Feb 2000, Commissioner Japal Guidani retired from the service prior to the finalization of his proposed resolution in the Ramirez protest. In said resolution, Commissioner Julio Desamito had dissented while Commissioner Luzviminda Tancangco did not indicate her vote. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Supreme Court has the power to review decisions of the COMELEC. HELD: YES. Article IX-A, Section 7 provides…

Keep Reading

FACTS: Petitioners impugned the challenged resolutions of the Commission on Elections in pre-proclamation cases classified as special cases. ISSUE(S): Whether or not the Commission on Elections en banc may hear and decide pre-proclamation cases classified as special cases. HELD: NO. Article IX-C, Section 3 of the Constitution expressly provides that election cases include pre-proclamation controversies, and all such cases must first be heard and decided by a division of the commission. The commission, sitting en banc, does not have the authority to hear and decide the same at the first instance.

Keep Reading