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 Administrative non-disciplianry cases

Start
Prev
1
Next
End

Action Officer
Topic Author
Offline

6 years 10 months ago #61 by Action Officer

Action Officer created the topic: Administrative non-disciplianry cases

1. What kind of benefit was meant in the following provision: Section 96. Dropping From the Rolls; Non-Disciplinary in Nature. – This mode of separation from the service for unauthorized absences or unsatisfactory or poor performance or physical or mental incapacity is non-disciplinary in nature and shall not result in the forfeiture of any benefit on the part of the official or employee or in disqualification from reemployment in the government.

In Municipality of Butig, Lanao Del Sur vs. Municipality of Butig, Lanao Del Sur G.R. No. 138348 December 9, 2005, the High Court ruled, as follows: “x x x. To emphasize, the action of dropping private respondent municipal employees from the rolls is non-disciplinary in nature and does not result in the forfeiture of their benefits nor their disqualification from re-employment in the government. Likewise, dropping from the rolls of private respondents is without prejudice to their re-appointment at the discretion of the appointing authority and subject to Civil Service laws, rules and regulations.” Verily, the Supreme Court, in the case of Milagros E. Amores vs. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal And Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva, had this to say: “Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguire debemus”. When the law does not distinguish, we must not distinguish”. Verily the above rulings and the subject RRACCS provision is clear, unequivocal, and leaves no room for interpretation.

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

Start
Prev
1
Next
End