×
ADVISORY!

The views and opinions expressed in this forum are those of the online action officers and not necessarily those of the Office for Legal Affairs or the Commission on CSC laws, rules and regulations. Also, be reminded that the views of the action officer is a mere advice that does not bind the office.

When posting, you agree that the administrator has the right to delete your posts or ban your account without prior warning in case of non-observance of any of the guidelines.
Guidelines to clients:

1. Please browse the frequently asked questions first to see if there are already the same or related questions that were asked on your query/ies;
2. Official response to issues shall be provided by the concerned office of the Commission, not through this forum;
3. Requests for the status of the case is not allowed in this forum;
4. Questions regarding the scheduled CSC examination will be deleted;
5. This forum is categorized according to subject matter. Please post your queries in appropriate category;
6. Post a descriptive topic name. Give a short summary of your problem/s;
7. No spam in this forum. Your posts will be deleted and your account will be banned without prior warning;
8. Refrain from posting pictures and offensive words or links. Violation of this rule shall give the administrator the right to delete your posts and ban your account without prior warning;
9. Please report to administrators if you see a user violating any of this guidelines;
10. Be respectful to the administrators and users; and
11. Please avoid text-message style substitution of words like “r” for “are” and “u” for “you”. If your message is difficult to understand the administrator shall inform you to rewrite your message.

Question disciplinary proceeding regardings?

More
2 years 1 week ago #8907 by Bates
Bates created the topic: disciplinary proceeding regardings?
is there any judgement on the topic where this.auth has blamed c.o without any recording statement or evidence & in presence of no witness tried to prove curruption charges on govt officer ie co.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
2 years 5 days ago #8926 by Action Officer 23
Action Officer 23 replied the topic: disciplinary proceeding regardings?
Please be informed that as a policy, the Commission does not render opinions/rulings on issues that may eventually be the subject of a complaint or appeal before it. This is especially so if the material facts necessary to a judicious adjudication of the issues are not fully presented or substantiated as in this case. Nevertheless, we will cite the pertinent provision/s under the Civil Service rules and applicable jurisprudence that will best answer your query/ies.

Nevertheless, in the case of Carlos R. Saunar vs. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita and Constancia P. De Guzman, Chairperson of the Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, G.R. No. 186502 promulgated on December 13, 2017, the Supreme Court cited the landmark case of Ang Tibay v. The Court of Industrial Relations, which expounded on the concept of due process in administrative proceedings, to wit:

There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in administrative proceedings:

(1) The first of these rights is the right to a hearing, which includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof.

(2) Not only must the party be given an opportunity to present his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal must consider the evidence presented.

(3) While the duty to deliberate does not impose the obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that of having something to support its decision.

(4) Not only must there be some evidence to support a finding or conclusion but the evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

(5) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
(6) The Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore, must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision. It may be that the volume of work is such that it is literally impossible for the titular heads of the Court of Industrial Relations personally to decide all controversies coming before them. In the United States the difficulty is solved with the enactment of statutory authority, authorizing examiners or other subordinates to render final decision, with right to appeal to board or commission, but in our case there is no such statutory authority.

(7) The Court of Industrial Relations should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered. The performance of this duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.

We hope to have been of service to you.

Thank you.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Powered by Kunena Forum