Documents

Cases 2

Description
Case
Categories
Published
of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  Cena v CSCFacts:Gaudencio Cena worked for 7 years as a Legal Ocer of the Law Dept of Caloocan City! e was thentransferred to the Oce of the Congress#an where he worked as a Supervising Sta$ Ocer for %#onths! e was then appointed as &egistrar of the &D '&egister of Deeds( in )ala*on! +n total, he hasrendered govt service for -- years, . #onths and / days! 0efore reaching his /1th *day, he re2uestedthe L&3 3d#inistrator that he *e allowed to e4tend his service to co#plete the -15year servicere2uire#ent to ena*le hi# to re6re with full *enets of old age pension!8he L&3 3d#inistrator sought a ruling fro# the CSC! 8he CSC denied the e4tension *ut Cena led a#o6on for reconsidera6on! 8his 6#e around, CSC granted a -5yr e4tension to hi#! Cena s6ll led a caseagainst CSC for grave a*use of discre6on when it granted an e4tension of only - yr! e contends that thelaw'Sec --, 9D --/ also known as &evised Govt +nsurance 3ct( does not li#it or specify the #a4i#u#nu#*er of years the re6ree #ay avail of to co#plete the -15year service! 8hus, the CSC has no authorityto li#it through a #e#orandu# the nu#*er of years!+n defense, CSC said that since it is the central personnel agency of the govt, it is vested with power togrant or allow e4tension of service *eyond re6re#ent age!+ssue:;hether or not Cena is allowed to con6nue in the service to co#plete the -15year service re2uire#ent< eld:=es! 3n ad#inistra6ve circular, such as a #e#orandu# of the CSC cannot li#it 9D --/, on e4tension of service of e#ployees who reach /1! ;hile it is true that CSC is given the authority to take appropriateac6on on all appoint#ents and other personnel #a>ers in the Civil Service, it cannot e4tend to #a>ersnot covered! 8he CSCs authority is li#ited only to carrying into e$ect what 9D --/ says! +t cannot go*eyond the ter#s and provisions of the *asic law!8he CSC )e#orandu#, *eing in the nature of an ad#inistra6ve regula6on, #ust *e governed *y theprinciple that a regula6on #ust *e in har#ony with the provisions of the law and should *e for the solepurpose of carrying into e$ect its general provisions! CSC has no power to supply or add perceivedo#issions in 9D --/!Cena v CSC  Facts:Gaudencio Cena worked for 7 years as a Legal Ocer of the Law Dept of Caloocan City! e was thentransferred to the Oce of the Congress#an where he worked as a Supervising Sta$ Ocer for %#onths! e was then appointed as &egistrar of the &D '&egister of Deeds( in )ala*on! +n total, he hasrendered govt service for -- years, . #onths and / days! 0efore reaching his /1th *day, he re2uestedthe L&3 3d#inistrator that he *e allowed to e4tend his service to co#plete the -15year servicere2uire#ent to ena*le hi# to re6re with full *enets of old age pension! 8he L&3 3d#inistrator sought aruling fro# the CSC! 8he CSC denied the e4tension *ut Cena led a #o6on for reconsidera6on! 8his 6#earound, CSC granted a -5yr e4tension to hi#! Cena s6ll led a case against CSC for grave a*use of discre6on when it granted an e4tension of only - yr! e contends that the law'Sec --, 9D --/ alsoknown as &evised Govt +nsurance 3ct( does not li#it or specify the #a4i#u# nu#*er of years there6ree #ay avail of to co#plete the -15year service! 8hus, the CSC has no authority to li#it through a#e#orandu# the nu#*er of years!+n defense, CSC said that since it is the central personnel agency of the govt, it is vested with power togrant or allow e4tension of service *eyond re6re#ent age!+ssue:;hether or not Cena is allowed to con6nue in the service to co#plete the -15year service re2uire#ent< eld:=es! 3n ad#inistra6ve circular, such as a #e#orandu# of the CSC cannot li#it 9D --/, on e4tension of service of e#ployees who reach /1! ;hile it is true that CSC is given the authority to take appropriateac6on on all appoint#ents and other personnel #a>ers in the Civil Service, it cannot e4tend to #a>ersnot covered! 8he CSCs authority is li#ited only to carrying into e$ect what 9D --/ says! +t cannot go*eyond the ter#s and provisions of the *asic law!8he CSC )e#orandu#, *eing in the nature of an ad#inistra6ve regula6on, #ust *e governed *y theprinciple that a regula6on #ust *e in har#ony with the provisions of the law and should *e for the solepurpose of carrying into e$ect its general provisions! CSC has no power to supply or add perceivedo#issions in 9D --/!&a*or v! CSCFacts:  Dionisio )! &a*or is a ?6lity ;orker in the Oce of the )ayor, Davao City! e entered the govern#entservice as a ?6lity ;orker on -@ 3pril -.7A at the age of 11 years! So#e6#e in )ay -..-, an ocial inthe Oce of the )ayor of Davao City, advised Dionisio )! &a*or to apply for re6re#ent, consideringthat he had already #ore than /A years old! &a*or responded *y showing a GS+S cer6cate with anota6on to the e$ect that his service is e4tended for hi# to co#plete the -15years re2uire#ent forre6re#ent! 8he Davao City Govern#ent wrote to the &egional Director of the Civil Service Co##ission, &egion B+, Davao City infor#ing the la>er of theforegoing and re2ues6ng advice as to what ac6on should *e taken on &a*ors case! Director Cawardreplied *y saying that &a*ors con6nued e#ploy#ent is contrary to O9 )!C! o! /1 hence, it is non5e4tendi*le! )ayor Duterte furnished &a*or a copy of Cawads le>er and order hi# not to work any#ore!&a*or asked Director Cawad for e4tension of his o* un6l he co#pleted the -15year re2uire#ent *ut wasdenied! &a*or then asked O9 for an e4tension! is re2uest was referred *y O9 to CSC and thereaEer CSCdenied &a*ors re2uest! &a*or asked for reconsidered of CSC ruling ci6ng Cena case *ut was denied!&a*or reiterated his re2uest to )ayor Duterte *ut was re*u$ed! ence, this pe66on!+ssue:;O &a*or re2uest for e4tension should *e granted in view of Cena case eld:o! Cena doctrine overturned! +n Cena v! CSC, the Court reached its conclusion pri#arily on the *asis of the plain and ordinary #eaning of Sec6on -- '*( of 9!D! o! --/! ;hile Sec6on -- '*( appeared castin ver*ally un2ualied ter#s, there were 'and s6ll are( two '( ad#inistra6ve issuances which prescri*eli#ita6ons on the e4tension of service that #ay *e granted to an e#ployee who has reached si4ty5ve'/1( years of age! 8hese are CSC Circular o! 7, s! -..@ and O9 )!C! o! /1! 8he Court resolved thechallenges posed *y the a*ove two '( ad#inistra6ve regula6ons *y, rstly, considering as invalid CivilService )e#orandu# o! 7 and, secondly, *y interpre6ng the Oce of the 9residentHs )e#orandu#Circular o! /1 as inapplica*le to the case of Gaudencio 8! Cena! evertheless, the Court now ruled thatthe SC in Cena #ade a narrow interpreta6on! +t is incorrect to decide the issue on the *asis only of 9D--/! &eading the per6nent provisions the 3d#in Code par6cularly the provisions governing the CSC, itis clear that *oth the 3d#in Code and 9D --/ are the governing laws rela6ng to re6re#ent of govern#ent ocials and e#ployees! +t was on the *asis of the a*ove 2uoted provisions of the -.A73d#inistra6ve Code that the Civil Service Co##ission pro#ulgated its )e#orandu# Circular o! 7! +ndoing so, the Co##ission was ac6ng as the central personnel agency of the govern#ent e#powered topro#ulgate policies, standards and guidelines for ecient, responsive and e$ec6ve personnelad#inistra6on in the govern#ent! +t was also discharging its func6on of ad#inistering the re6re#entprogra# for govern#ent ocials and e#ployees and of evaluatIingJ 2ualica6ons for re6re#ent! +t isalso incorrect to say that li#ita6on of per#issi*le e4tensions of service aEer an e#ployee has reachedsi4ty5ve '/1( years of age has no reasona*le rela6onship or is not ger#ane to the foregoing provisionsof the present Civil Service Law! 8he physiological and psychological processes associated with ageing inhu#an *eings are in fact related to the eciency and 2uality of the service that #ay *e e4pected fro#  individual persons! CSC )e#o o! 7 is not invalid for having gone *eyond the para#eters set *y 9D--/! +n fact what the legislature intends is that the CSC should Kll in the details in the i#ple#enta6onof 9D --/!C3&+MO v!C3&+MOF3C8S:+n -./. S9O San6ago CariNo #arried Susan icdao CariNo! e had  children with her! +n -.., S9Ocontracted a second #arriage, this 6#e with Susan =ee CariNo! +n -.AA, prior to his second #arriage,S9O is already *edridden and he was under the care of =ee! +n -.., he died -% days aEer his #arriagewith =ee! 8hereaEer, the spouses went on to clai# the *enets of S9O! icdao was a*le to clai# a totalof 9-@,@@@!@@ while =ee was a*le to collect a total of 9-,@@@!@@! +n -..%, =ee led an ac6on forcollec6on of su# of #oney against icdao! She wanted to have half of the 9-@k! =ee ad#i>ed that her#arriage with S9O was sole#nied during the su*sistence of the #arriage *Pn S9O and icdao *utthe said #arriage *etween icdao and S9O is null and void due to the a*sence of a valid #arriagelicense as cer6ed *y the local civil registrar! =ee also clai#ed that she only found out a*out the previous#arriage on S9Os funeral!+SS?Q: ;hether or not the a*solute nullity of #arriage #ay *e invoked to clai# presu#p6ve legi6#es! QLD: 8he #arriage *etween icdao and S9O is null and void due the a*sence of a valid #arriagelicense! 8he #arriage *etween =ee and S9O is likewise null and void for the sa#e has *een sole#niedwithout the udicial declara6on of the nullity of the #arriage *etween icdao and S9O! ?nder 3r6cle@ of the FC, the a*solute nullity of a previous #arriage #ay *e invoked for purposes of re#arriage onthe *asis solely of a nal udg#ent declaring such previous #arriage void! )eaning, where the a*solutenullity of a previous #arriage is sought to *e invoked for purposes of contrac6ng a second #arriage, thesole *asis accepta*le in law, for said proected #arriage to *e free fro# legal inr#ity, is a nal udg#entdeclaring the previous #arriage void! owever, for purposes other than re#arriage, no udicial ac6on isnecessary to declare a #arriage an a*solute nullity! For other purposes, such as *ut not li#ited to thedeter#ina6on of heirship, legi6#acy or illegi6#acy of a child, se>le#ent of estate, dissolu6on of property regi#e, or a cri#inal case for that #a>er, the court #ay pass upon the validity of #arriageeven aEer the death of the par6es thereto, and even in a suit not directly ins6tuted to 2ues6on thevalidity of said #arriage, so long as it is essen6al to the deter#ina6on of the case! +n such instances,evidence #ust *e adduced, tes6#onial or docu#entary, to prove the e4istence of grounds renderingsuch a previous #arriage an a*solute nullity! 8hese need not *e li#ited solely to an earlier nal udg#ent of a court declaring such previous #arriage void!
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks