Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 78 views

    Civil Service Commission vs. Larry M. ALFONSO G.R. No. 179452 June 11, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Yeshua Tura
    The CSC filed an administrative case against Larry M. Alfonso, Director of the Human Resources Management Department of PUP, for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the service, and violations of civil service laws and regulations based on a complaint filed by two PUP employees. Alfonso argued the CSC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the CSC has jurisdiction to hear administrative cases involving government employees, including those in public universities. It found Alfonso had already submitted himself to the CSC's jurisdiction by filing motions in the case. The CSC was within its powers to impose the preventive suspension on Alfonso while the case was pending.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Civil Service Commission vs. Larry M. ALFONSO G.R. No. 179452 June 11, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Yeshua Tura
    78 views2 pages
    The CSC filed an administrative case against Larry M. Alfonso, Director of the Human Resources Management Department of PUP, for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the service, and violations of civil service laws and regulations based on a complaint filed by two PUP employees. Alfonso argued the CSC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the CSC has jurisdiction to hear administrative cases involving government employees, including those in public universities. It found Alfonso had already submitted himself to the CSC's jurisdiction by filing motions in the case. The CSC was within its powers to impose the preventive suspension on Alfonso while the case was pending.

    Original Title

    CSC VS. ALFONSO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The CSC filed an administrative case against Larry M. Alfonso, Director of the Human Resources Management Department of PUP, for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the service, and violations of civil service laws and regulations based on a complaint filed by two PUP employees. Alfonso argued the CSC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the CSC has jurisdiction to hear administrative cases involving government employees, including those in public universities. It found Alfonso had already submitted himself to the CSC's jurisdiction by filing motions in the case. The CSC was within its powers to impose the preventive suspension on Alfonso while the case was pending.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    78 views2 pages

    Civil Service Commission vs. Larry M. ALFONSO G.R. No. 179452 June 11, 2009

    Uploaded by

    Yeshua Tura
    The CSC filed an administrative case against Larry M. Alfonso, Director of the Human Resources Management Department of PUP, for grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the service, and violations of civil service laws and regulations based on a complaint filed by two PUP employees. Alfonso argued the CSC did not have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled the CSC has jurisdiction to hear administrative cases involving government employees, including those in public universities. It found Alfonso had already submitted himself to the CSC's jurisdiction by filing motions in the case. The CSC was within its powers to impose the preventive suspension on Alfonso while the case was pending.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vs. LARRY M.

    ALFONSO G.R. No. 179452 June 11, 2009

    Facts: Respondent Larry M. Alfonso is the Director of the Human Resources ManagementDepartment of
    PUP. On July 6, 2006, an Affidavit-Complaint filed against Alfonso forviolation of Republic Act (RA) No.
    6713, charging the latter with grave misconduct,conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the Service,
    and violation of Civil Service Law,rules and regulations. The affidavit-complaint was lodged before the
    Civil ServiceCommission (CSC). The affidavit alleged that respondent repeatedly abused hisauthority as
    head of PUP’s personnel department. The CSC charged Alfonso with gravemisconduct and conduct
    prejudicial to the best interest of the Service, and imposing a90-day preventive suspension against him.
    Respondent argued that the CSC had nojurisdiction to hear and decide the administrative case filed
    against him. The PUP Boardof Regents that has the exclusive authority to appoint and remove PUP
    employeespursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 8292 in relation to R.A. No. 4670. Without rulingon the
    motion, the head of CSC-NCR, issued an Order directing the Office of thePresident of PUP to implement
    the preventive suspension order against respondent.Respondent sought relief before the CA via a
    petition for certiorari and prohibition. CArendered a Decision in favor of Alfonso.

    Issue:

    Whether the CSC has jurisdiction to hear and decide the complaint filed againstAlfonso.

    Held:We find in favor of petitioner. SECTION 9 Powers and Functions of the Commission. –The
    Commission shall administer the Civil Service and shall have thefollowing powers and function: (j) Hear
    and decide administrative disciplinary casesinstituted directly with it in accordance with Section 37 or
    brought to iton appeal; Section 37.Disciplinary Jurisdiction. – (a) The Commission shall decide
    uponappeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving the imposition of a penalty ofsuspension for
    more than thirty days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days’ salary,demotion in rank or salary or
    transfer, removal or dismissal from Office. A complaintmay be filed directly with the Commission by a
    private citizen against a governmentofficial or employee in which case it may hear and decide the case
    or it may deputizeany department or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the
    investigation.The results of the investigation shall be submitted to the Commission
    withrecommendation as to the penalty to be imposed or other action to be taken.We are not unmindful
    of certain special laws that allow the creation of disciplinarycommittees and governing bodies in
    different branches, subdivisions, agencies andinstrumentalities of the government to hear and decide
    administrative complaintsagainst their respective officers and employees. Be that as it may, we cannot
    interpretthe creation of such bodies nor the passage of laws such as – R.A. Nos. 8292 and 4670allowing
    for the creation of such disciplinary bodies – as having divested the CSC of itsinherent power to
    supervise and discipline government employees, including those inthe academe. Equally significant is
    the fact that he, Alfonso, had already submittedhimself to the jurisdiction of the CSC when he filed his
    counter-affidavit and his motionfor reconsideration and requested for a change of venue from the CSC-
    Central Office tothe CSC-NCR. It was only when his motion was denied that he suddenly had a changeof
    heart and raised the question of proper jurisdiction. This cannot be allowed because itwould violate the
    doctrine of res judicata, a legal principle that is applicable toadministrative cases as well. At the very
    least, respondent’s active participation in theproceedings by seeking affirmative relief before the CSC
    already bars him fromimpugning the Commission’s authority under the principle of estoppel by laches.
    In thiscase, the complaint-affidavits were filed by two PUP employees.

    You might also like