Tan v.

COMELEC
Facts:On 10 May 1992, Antonio Tan, as incumbent city Prosecutor o !avaoCity, "as #esi$nate# by t%e
Commission on E&ections as 'ice(C%airman
o t%e City )oar# o Canvassers o !avao City or t%e 11t% May 1992sync%roni*e# nationa& an# &oca& e&ections
conormab&y "it% t%e +rovisions o ,ection 20-a. o /e+ub&ic Act 0o. 1121 an# ,ection 221-b. o t%e
OmnibusE&ection Co#eOn t%e basis o t%e votes canvasse# by t%e )oar# o Canvassers, Manue&3arcia "as
+roc&aime# t%e "innin$ can#i#ate or a con$ressiona& seat tore+resent t%e 2n# !istrict o !avao City in t%e
4ouse o /e+resentatives.,enoriano A&tera#o, anot%er can#i#ate or t%e +osition, 5&e# a numbero cases
6uestionin$ t%e va&i#ity o t%e +roc&amation o Manue& 3arcia
an#accusin$ t%e members o t%e City )oar# o Canvassers o 7un&a"u&,erroneous, incom+&ete an# irre$u&ar c
anvass.7 Mean"%i&e, t%e e&ectora&+rotest o A&tera#o "as #ismisse# by t%e 4/ET. T%e crimina& com+&aint
or7Fa&si5cation o Pub&ic !ocuments an# 'io&ation o t%e Anti(3rat an# Corru+tPractices Act7 beore t%e
O8ce o t%e Ombu#sman "as &i9e"ise #ismisse#on t%e $roun# o &ac9 o crimina& intent on t%e +art o t%erein
res+on#ents.An a#ministrative c%ar$e "as institute# in t%e COMELEC a$ainst t%e
City)oar# o Canvassers, inc&u#in$ Antonio Tan, or 7Miscon#uct, 0e$&ect o !uty, 3ross :ncom+etence an#
Acts :nimica& to t%e ,ervice.7 Tan move# to #ismiss t%e a#ministrative com+&aint a$ainst %im ora&&e$e# &ac9
o ;uris#iction o t%e COMELEC, %e bein$ un#er t%e
E<ecutive!e+artment o t%e $overnment an# t%at COMELEC=s +o"er to #e+uti*e+ub&ic o8cers be&on$in$ to
t%e e<ecutive #e+artment is or t%e +ur+ose
o insurin$ ree, or#er&y an# %onest e&ections. :t #oes not inc&u#e an#com+re%en# a#ministrative #isci+&inary
;uris#iction over o8cia&s
be&on$in$ tot%e e<ecutive branc% o $overnment. T%at ;uris#iction over #e+uti*e#e<ecutive o8cers cannot be
#eeme# to inc&u#e suc% +o"ers as "ou&#
a&&o"encroac%ment into t%e #omain o t%e e<ecutive branc% un#er $uise o a#ministerin$ &a"s re&ative to e&ec
tions. . Motion to #ismiss "as #enie#.4ence, t%is +etition.
:ssue:>%et%er t%e COMELEC $rave&y abuse# its #iscretion in #enyin$ t%emotion to #ismiss
4e&#:0o. T%e COMELEC?s aut%ority un#er ,ection 2-1(@., Artic&e :A, o t%eConstitution is virtua&&y a&&(
encom+assin$ "%en it comes to e&ection
matters. T%e a#ministrative case a$ainst Tan, ta9en co$ni*ance o by, an# sti&&+en#in$ "it%, t%e COMELEC, is
in re&ation to t%e +erormance o %is #uties asan e&ection canvasser an# not as a city +rosecutor. T%e
COMELEC?s man#ateinc&u#es its aut%ority to e<ercise #irect an# imme#iate su+ervision an# contro& over
nationa& an# &oca& o8cia&s or em+&oyees, inc&u#in$ members o any nationa& or &oca& &a" enorcement a$ency
an# instrumenta&ity o t%e$overnment, re6uire# by &a" to +erorm #uties re&ative to t%e con#uct
o e&ections. :n or#er to %e&+ ensure t%at suc% #u&y #e+uti*e# o8cia&s an#em+&oyees o $overnment carry out
t%eir res+ective assi$ne# tas9s, t%e
&a"%as a&so +rovi#e# t%an u+on t%e COMELEC?s recommen#ation, t%ecorres+on#in$ +ro+er aut%ority -t%e
,ecretary o t%e !e+artment o Bustice int%e case at bar. s%a&& ta9e a++ro+riate action, eit%er to sus+en# or
removerom o8ce t%e o8cer or em+&oyee "%o may, ater #ue +rocess, be
oun#$ui&ty o vio&ation o e&ection &a"s or ai&ure to com+&y "it% instructions,or#ers, #ecision or ru&in$s o t%e
COMELEC. 4o"ever, t%e COMELEC, +rior toma9in$ its recommen#ation, must 5rst satisy itse& t%at t%ere
in#ee# %asbeen an inraction o t%e &a", or o its #irectives issue# conormab&yt%ere"it%, by t%e +erson
a#ministrative&y c%ar$e#. :t a&so stan#s to reasont%at it is t%e COMELEC, bein$ in t%e best +osition to assess
%o" its
#e+uti*e#o8cia&s an# em+&oyees +erorm or %ave +erorme# in t%eir #uties t%ats%ou&# con#uct t%e a#ministr
ative in6uiry. To say t%at t%e COMELEC is"it%out ;uris#iction to &oo9 into c%ar$es o e&ection oCenses
committe# byo8cia&s an# em+&oyees o $overnment outsi#e t%e re$u&ar em+&oy o t%eCOMELEC "ou&# be to
un#u&y #eny to it t%e +ro+er an# soun# e<ercise o suc% recommen#atory +o"er an#, +er%a+s more t%an
t%at, even a +ossib&e#enia& o #ue +rocess to t%e o8cia& or em+&oyee
concerne#. T%e COMELEC mere&y may issue a recommen#ation or #isci+&inaryaction but t%at it is t%e
e<ecutive #e+artment to "%ic% t%e c%ar$e# o8cia&
orem+&oyee be&on$s "%ic% %as t%e u&timate aut%ority to im+ose t%e#isci+&inary +ena&ty. T%e &a" t%en #oes
not #etract rom, but is con$ruent"it%, t%e $enera& a#ministrative aut%ority o t%e #e+artment o
$overnmentconcerne# over its o"n +ersonne&.
L:)A0A0 ',. ,A0!:3A0)ADA0
2EE ,C/A 11E
Petitioner: Marce&ino Libanan
/es+on#ents: ,A0!:3A0)ADA0 an# A$ustin ). !ocena
Ponente: B. 'itu$
FACT,:Petitioner Libanan is t%e incumbent vice($overnor o Eastern ,amar an# "as a ormer member o t%e
,an$$unian$Pan&a&a"i$an +rior to t%e 1992 e&ections.4e "as c%ar$e# in cons+irin$ to ot%er members to
+revent an# e<c&u#e !ocena -/es+on#ent., a 6ua&i5e#re+&acement o a #ecease# member, rom e<ercisin$
%is ri$%ts an# +rero$atives as a member o t%e sai# bo#y.:n eCect, t%e ,A0!:3A0)ADA0 issue# a
reso&ution sus+en#in$ t%eir res+ective +ub&ic +osition an# o8ce or ninety-90. #ays.Petitioner 5&e# a motion
or reconsi#eration, a&&e$in$ t%ree $roun#s: F1G Or#er o ,us+ension i e<ecute# s%a&&aront t%e +etitioner s
ri$%t or #ue +rocessH F2G t%e sus+ension "ou&# assau&t %is covenant to t%e +eo+&e o ,amaras t%eir vice(
$overnorH an# FEG t%e reasons sou$%t to be +revente# by t%e sus+ension no &on$er e<ist.Petitioner conten#s
t%at t%e or#er o sus+ension, bein$ +re#icate# on %is acts su++ose#&y committe# "%i&e sti&& amember o t%e
,an$$unian$ )ayan, can no &on$er attac% to %im no" t%at %e is t%e #u&y e&ecte# an# incumbent'ice(
3overnor o Eastern ,amar.
:,,IE,:>%et%er or not t%e Or#er o ,us+ension $iven by t%e ,A0!:3A0)ADA0 is va&i#J
4EL!:Des. T%e Court ru&e# t%at t%e term 7o8ce7 use# in t%e &a" cou&# a++&y to any o8ce "%ic% t%e o8cer
c%ar$e#mi$%t current&y be %o&#in$ an# not necessari&y t%e +articu&ar o8ce un#er "%ic% %e "as c%ar$e#.T%e
sus+ension or#er cannot amount to a #e+rivation o +ro+erty "it%out #ue +rocess o &a". Pub&ic o8ce is
7a+ub&ic a$ency or trust,7an# it is not t%e +ro+erty envisione# by t%e Constitutiona& +rovision"%ic%
+etitionerinvo9es.4ence, ,C #ismisse# t%e +etition. ,A0!:3A0)ADA0 s #ecision is a8rme#.

3./. 0o. 1022E2 Marc% 9, 1992':OLETA AL!O':0O an# co.vs.,EC/ETA/D /AFAEL ALI0A0 :::, !EPA/TME0T OF
TOI/:,M an# co.
Facts:
4erein +etitioners an# intervenors see9 reinstatement an# +ayment o bac9 "a$es, citin$ Man#ani v
3on*a&es an# Abro$arv 3arruc%o Br. an# 3arruc%o.Man#ani v 3on*a&es:EO K120, ,ec. 29

too9 eCect u+on a++rova& t%at reor$ani*es t%e Ministry o Tourism, +rovi#in$ t%at t%e incumbents"%ose
+ositions are not inc&u#e# in t%e ne" system o +osition structure an# sta8n$ +attern are se+arate# rom
service.T%en Ministry o Tourism, ater"%ic% issue# o8ce or#ers an# memoran#a vacatin$ many +ositions
an# eCectin$ t%ese+aration o em+&oyees inc&u#in$ +etitioners Man#ani, Abro$ar an# Arna&#o

"%ic% ma#e t%em 5&e t%eir cases an#instant +etition.:n Man#ani, t%e o8ce or#ers an# memoran#a issue# by
MoT "ere #ec&are# nu&& an# voi# +ursuant to EOK120 an# toimme#iate&y restore t%e +etitioners to t%eir
+ositions "it% sa&aries com+ute# un#er t%e ne" +osition an# sta8n$ systemrom t%e #ates o t%eir inva&i#
terminations at rates not &o"er t%an t%eir ormer sa&aries.
Issue
:>%et%er or not t%e +etitioners an# intervenors must be reinstate# an# +ai# o t%eir bac9 "a$es.
Ruling:
:t "as t%e +ub&ic res+on#ents "%o create# t%e +rob&em o +etitioners an# intervenors by i&&e$a&&y abo&is%in$
t%eir +ositionsan# terminatin$ t%eir services in outra$eous #isre$ar# o t%e basic +rotection accor#e# civi&
servants, %ence our re+eate#+ronouncement t%at it "as unconstitutiona&.T%e ,u+reme Court ru&e# t%at
%erein +etitioners are reinstate# imme#iate&y to t%eir ormer +ositions "it%out &oss oseniority ri$%ts an# "it%
bac9 sa&aries com+ute# un#er ne" sta8n$ +attern rom t%e #ates o t%eir inva&i# #ismissa& at ratesnot &o"er
t%an t%eir ormer sa&aries but not to e<cee# a +erio# o L years "it% severa& +rovisions. 4avin$ oun# out t%at
t%eE<ecutive Or#er is unconstitutiona&, t%us #ismissa& o t%e em+&oyees is a&so unconstitutiona&. T%e courts
#ec&are# its tota&nu&&ity. An unconstitutiona& act is not a &a", it coners no ri$%ts, im+oses no #uties an#
aCor#s no +rotection. :n &e$a&contem+&ation, it is ino+erative as i it %a# not been +asse#. :t is t%ereore
stric9en rom t%e statute boo9s an# consi#ere#never to %ave e<iste# at a&&. A&& +ersons are boun# by t%e
#ec&aration o unconstitutiona&ity "%ic% means t%at no one mayt%ereater invo9e it nor may t%e courts be
+ermitte# to a++&y it in subse6uent cases. :t is as i t%e intervenors "ere neverserve# t%eir termination or#ers
an#, conse6uent&y, "ere never se+arate# rom t%e service. >%enever t%e courts #ec&are#an a#ministrative
o8cia& to %ave acte# in un&a"u& manner, t%at o8cia& must un#o t%e %armu& eCects o %is i&&e$a& act an#to
accor# to t%e a$$rieve# +arties restoration or restitution in $oo# ait% to ma9e u+ or t%e #e+rivations "%ic%
may %avesuCere# because o %is act.
KMU vs Garcia Case Digest
Kilusang Mayo Uno Labor Center vs Garcia239 SCRA 3! "#99$%Facts:
T%e Mi&usan$ Mayo Ino Labor Center -MMI. assai&s t%e constitutiona&ity an#va&i#ity o a memoran#um "%ic%, amon$ ot%ers,
aut%ori*e +rovincia& bus an# ;ee+neyo+erators to increase or #ecrease t%e +rescribe# trans+ortation ares "it%out
a++&icationt%ereore "it% t%e LTF/), an# "it%out %earin$ an# a++rova& t%ereo by sai# a$ency.
Issue:
>%et%er or not t%e absence o notice an# %earin$ an# t%e #e&e$ation o aut%orityin t%e increase or #ecrease o trans+ortation ares
to +rovincia& bus an# ;ee+neyo+erators is i&&e$a&J
&el':
In#er ,ection 11 -c. o t%e Pub&ic ,ervice Act, as amen#e#, t%e &e$is&ature#e&e$ate# to t%e #eunct Pub&ic ,ervice Commission t%e
+o"er o 5<in$ t%e rates o +ub&ic services. LTF/), t%e e<istin$ re$u&atory bo#y to#ay, is &i9e"ise veste# "it% t%esame un#er
E<ecutive Or#er 202.T%e aut%ority $iven by t%e LTF/) to t%e bus o+erators to set ares over an# above t%eaut%ori*e# e<istin$ are
is i&&e$a& an# inva&i#, as it is tantamount to un#ue #e&e$ation o &e$is&ative aut%ority. In#er t%e ma<im +otestas #e&e$ate non
#e&e$ari +otest


"%at%as been #e&e$ate# cannot be #e&e$ate#.N
T%e +o&icy a&&o"in$ +rovincia& bus o+erators to c%an$e an# increase t%eir ares "ou&#resu&t not on&y to a c%aotic situation but to an
anarc%ic state o aCairs. T%is "ou&# &eavet%e ri#in$ +ub&ic at t%e mercy o trans+ort o+erators "%o may increase ares, every%our,
every #ay, every mont% or every year, "%enever it +&eases t%em or "%enever t%ey#eem it necessary to #o so. Furt%ermore, un#er
t%e ,ection 11 -a. o Pub&ic ,ervice Act, t%ere must be +ro+er notice an# %earin$ in t%e 5<in$ o rates, to arrive at a
;ust an#reasonab&e rate acce+tab&e to bot% t%e +ub&ic uti&ity an# t%e +ub&ic.
A.M. No. P-94-1055 November 25, 1994
VICTOR CHAN, complainant,
vs.
ISABELO P. CASTILLO, e!"#$ S%er&'', Re(&o)*+ Tr&*+ Co"r#, Br*),% 12, S*),%e- M&r*, C*(*$*),respondent.

./IASON, J.:
This is an administrative complaint filed against Deputy Sheriff Isabelo P. Castillo of the egional Trial Court, !ranch "#, Sanche$ %ira,
Cagayan for his failure to serve and ma&e a return of the summons to Civil Case 'o. "(")* before the egional Trial Court, !ranch "+,
,aoag City.
I
Sometime in December "--#, complainant instituted an action against .tty. Carlos Sagucio, a resident of Sanche$ %ira, Cagayan, /ith
the egional Trial Court, !ranch "+, ,aoag City and doc&eted as Civil Case 'o. "(")*.
The summons /as sent by mail to the sheriff of the egional Trial Court, !ranch "#, Sanche$ %ira, Cagayan, to be served on the
defendant in Civil Case 'o. "(")*. It /as received in Sanche$ %ira about the third /ee& of December "--# and found its /ay on the
office table of respondent.
.s the case had not been set for pre0trial conference after the lapse of "* months, on %arch "1, "--1, complainant in2uired from the cler&
of court of the egional Trial Court, !ranch "+, ,aoag City if summons had already been served 3Rollo, p. "45. The cler& of court
confirmed that summons /as mailed for service to the sheriff of the egional Trial Court, !ranch "#, Sanche$ %ira, Cagayan /ith the
corresponding sheriff6s fee of P"((.(( through postal money order. 7o/ever, the return card of the mail containing the summons had not
been received8 neither had the sheriff submitted his return 3Rollo, p. "15.
9n %ay 4, "--1, complainant filed the instant complaint, alleging that respondent and .tty. Sagucio /ere in connivance to avoid the
service of summons to the latter 3Rollo, p. "#5.
In his comment, respondent claimed that about the third /ee& of December "--#, somebody placed the copy of the summons on top of
his des&. 7e repeatedly tried to serve the same but to no avail because .tty. Sagucio /as in %anila and later /ent abroad.
espondent attributed his failure to serve the summons to the absence
of .tty. Sagucio and the lac& of information regarding the possible return of .tty. Sagucio. In the meantime, he :lost interest . . . in
in2uiring time and again: /hen .tty. Sagucio /ould return from abroad 3Rollo, p. 15. Subse2uently, repairs /ere done in his office and in
the process respondent lost the summons. 7e /as only reminded thereof /hen he learned of the instant complaint, prompting him to serve
the summons on ;une #(, "--1 3Rollo, p. <5.
II
espondent6s behavior constitutes gross negligence to the great pre=udice of the orderly administration of =ustice. 7e /as utterly remiss in
the performance of a ministerial duty of serving the summons. 7is e>cuse that
.tty. Sagucio /as al/ays out of to/n is not tenable for the la/ allo/s substituted service. ?e cite Section <, ule "1 of the evised
ules of Court, /hich provides@
Substituted service. A If the defendant cannot be served /ithin a reasonable time as provided in the preceding section,
service may be effected 3a5 by leaving copies of the summons at the defendant6s d/elling house or residence /ith
some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or 3b5 by leaving the copies at defendant6s office or regular
place of business /ith some competent person in charge thereof.
%oreover, Section + thereof mandates the server, in this case respondent, to ma&e a return. In both instances, respondent neglected to
observe the fundamental rules.
Bvery officer or employee in the ;udiciary is duty bound to obey the orders and processes of the court /ithout the least delay 3Pascual v.
Duncan, #"+ SC. )<+ C"--#D5, and to e>ercise at all times a high degree of professionalism in the performance of his duties.
?7BBE9B, respondent is EI'BD P*,(((.(( for gross neglect of duty and conduct pre=udicial to the best interest of the service,
payable /ithin thirty 34(5 days from receipt hereof, /ith a ?.'I'F that a repetition of the same or of acts calling for disciplinary
action /ill be dealt /ith more severely.
S9 9DBBD.
Santos vs. court of appeals
Leouel, a member of the Army, met Julia in Iloilo City. In September 1986, they got married. The ouple latter li!ed "ith
Julia#$ parent$. Julia ga!e birth to a $on in 198%. Their marriage, ho"e!er, "a$ marred by the fre&uent interferene of Julia#$
parent a$ a!erred by Leouel. The ouple al$o oa$ionally &uarrel$ about a$ to, among other thing$, "hen $hould they $tart
li!ing independently from Julia#$ parent$. In 1988, Julia "ent to the 'S to "or( a$ a nur$e de$pite Leouel#$ oppo$ition. %
month$ later, $he and Leouel got to tal( and $he promi$ed to return home in 1989. She ne!er "ent home that year. In
199), Leouel got the hane to be in the 'S due to a military training. *uring hi$ $tay, he de$perately tried to loate hi$ "ife
but to no a!ail. Leouel, in an effort to at lea$t ha!e hi$ "ife ome home, filed to nullify their marriage due to Julia#$
p$yhologial inapaity. Leouel a$$erted that due to Julia#$ failure to return home or at lea$t ommuniate "ith him e!en
"ith all hi$ effort on$titute$ p$yhologial inapaity. Julia atta(ed the omplaint and $he $aid that it i$ Leouel "ho i$
inompetent. The pro$eutor a$ertained that there i$ no ollu$ion bet"een the t"o. Leouel#$ petition i$ ho"e!er denied by
the lo"er and appellate ourt.
ISSUE: +hether or not p$yhologial inapaity i$ attendant to the a$e at bar.
HELD: ,efore deiding on the a$e, the SC noted that the -amily Code did not define the term .p$yhologial inapaity/,
"hih i$ adopted from the Catholi Canon La". ,ut ba$ing it on the deliberation$ of the -amily Code 0e!i$ion Committee,
the pro!i$ion in 1I, adopted "ith le$$ $peifiity than e2peted, ha$ been de$igned to allo" $ome re$ilieny in it$
appliation. The -C0C did not gi!e any e2ample$ of 1I for fear that the gi!ing of e2ample$ "ould limit the appliability of
the pro!i$ion under the priniple of e3u$dem generi$. 0ather, the -C0C "ould li(e the 3udge to interpret the pro!i$ion on a
a$e4to4a$e ba$i$, guided by e2periene, the finding$ of e2pert$ and re$earher$ in p$yhologial di$ipline$, and by
dei$ion$ of hurh tribunal$ "hih, although not binding on the i!il ourt$, may be gi!en per$ua$i!e effet $ine the
pro!i$ion "a$ ta(en from Canon La". The term .p$yhologial inapaity/ defie$ any prei$e definition $ine p$yhologial
au$e$ an be of an infinite !ariety.
Artile 56 of the -amily Code annot be ta(en and on$trued independently of but mu$t $tand in on3untion "ith, e2i$ting
preept$ in our la" on marriage. 1I $hould refer to no le$$ than a mental 6not phy$ial7 inapaity that au$e$ a party to be
truly inogniti!e of the ba$i marital o!enant$ that onomitantly mu$t be a$$umed and di$harged by the partie$ to the
marriage "hih 6Art. 687, inlude their mutual obligation$ to li!e together, ob$er!e lo!e, re$pet and fidelity and render
help and $upport. The intendment of the la" ha$ been to onfine the meaning of 1I to the mo$t $eriou$ a$e$ of
per$onality di$order$ learly demon$trati!e of an utter in$en$iti!ity or inability to gi!e meaning and $ignifiane to the
marriage. Thi$ p$yhologial ondition mu$t e2i$t at the time the marriage i$ elebrated. The SC al$o note$ that 1I mu$t be
harateri8ed by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The inapaity mu$t be gra!e or $eriou$ $uh
that the party "ould be inapable of arrying out the ordinary dutie$ re&uired in marriage9 it mu$t be rooted in the hi$tory
of the party antedating the marriage, although the o!ert manife$tation$ may emerge only after the marriage9 and it mu$t
be inurable or, e!en if it "ere other"i$e, the ure "ould be beyond the mean$ of the party in!ol!ed.
In the a$e at bar, although Leouel $tand$ aggrie!ed, hi$ petition mu$t be di$mi$$ed beau$e the alleged 1I of hi$ "ife i$
not learly $ho"n by the fatual $etting$ pre$ented. The fatual $etting$ do not ome lo$e to to the $tandard re&uired to
deree a nullity of marriage.
(nri)ue* +asilio vs Court o, A--eals an' Civil Service Co..ission
Facts:Petition or Certiorari o a #ecision o t%e Court o A++ea&s 0ovember 19@E
O Em+&oyees Pac%eco, )asi&io, 'a&encia, Enri6ue o t%e Civi& ,ervice Commission
an# Ma$&a6ui, 3arcia an#Cunanan "ere c%ar$e# "it% cons+irin$ an#
cone#eratin$ "it% P)ETH bribery o room e<aminers an# +roctorsCivi& ,ervice
Commission sus+en#e# Pac%eco, )asi&io, 'a&encia an# Enri6ue.T%e our a++ea&e#
to t%e :nterme#iate A++e&&ate Court.Pac%eco an# 'a&encia "ere reinstate#.)asi&io
an# Enri6ue "ere sti&& sus+en#e#.Bu&y E, 19@P O )asi&io an# Enri"ue 5&e# motion
or reconsi#eration "as #enie# or &ac9 o meritP! @0P Civi& ,ervice !ecree,ection
EP-b. T%e %ea#s o #e+artments, a$encies an# instrumenta&ities, +rovinces, cities
an# munici+a&ities s%a&& %ave ;uris#iction to investi$ate an# #eci#e matters
invo&vin$ #isci+&inary action a$ainst o8cers an# em+&oyeesun#er t%eir
;uris#iction.,ec. 20,ummary Procee#in$s. Q 0o orma& investi$ation is
necessary an# t%e res+on#ent may be imme#iate&yremove# or #ismisse# i
any o t%e o&&o"in$ circumstances is +resentH-a. >%en t%e c%ar$e is serious
an# t%e evi#ence o $ui&ty is stron$.
-b. >%en t%e res+on#ent is a reci#ivist or %as been re+eate#&y c%ar$e# an# t%ere i
s reasonab&e$roun# to be&ieve t%at %e is $ui&ty o t%e +resent c%ar$e.-c. >%en t%e
res+on#ent is notorious&y
un#esirab&e./esort t o summary +rocee#i n$s by #i sci +& i nary aut %ori t y
s%a& & be #one "i t % ut most ob; ect i vi t y an#im+artia&ity to t%e en# t%at no
in;ustice is committe#: Provi#e#, t%at remova& or #ismissa& e<ce+t t%ose by
t%ePresi#ent, %imse&, or u+on %is or#er, may be a++ea&e# to t%e Commission.P.!.
0o. 1209Merit ,ystem Protection )oar# ( o8ce un#er t%e C,C( veste# amon$
ot%er unctions, investi$ation o a#ministrative cases invo&vin$ o8cers
an#em+&oyees o t%e civi& service:ssues:Petitioners c&aim t%at ,ection EP -b. o
P.!. 0o. @0P %as been im+&ie#&y re+ea&e# by P.!. 0o. 1209>%et%er t%e Civi&
,ervice Commission or Merit ,ystems Protection )oar# %a# ori$ina& ;uris#iction
over C,C case 1E@>%et%er +etitioners "ere #enie# #ues +rocess o &a".>%et%er
t%e #ismissa& o +etitioners rom t%e service t%rou$% a summary +rocee#in$ by
t%e C,C "as +ro+er
/atio:Court ( 5rst reconci&e conRictin$ +rovisions o t%e statutes((((((((( it ison&y
"%en irreconci&ab&e t%at t%e ear&ier &a" %as been im+&ie#&y re+ea&e# by t%e &ater
&a"
Government Service Insurance System v
.
Civil Service Commission
, 202 ,C/A @21 -1991."%en t%e &a" besto"s u+on a $overnment bo#y t%e
;uris#iction to %ear an# #eci#e cases invo&vin$ s+eci5cmatters, it is to be
-resu.e' t%at suc% /uris'iction is e0clusive unless it be +rove# t%at
anot1er bo'y isli2e3ise veste' "it% t%e same ;uris#iction, in "%ic% case, bot%
bo#ies %ave concurrent ;uris#iction over t%ematter.
4e&#:Merit ,ystems Protection )oar# %as concurrent ori$ina& ;uris#iction
over #isci+&inary an# non(#isci+&inary casesSCivi& ,erviceCommissionSremains
t%e 5na& a#ministrative a++e&&ate bo#y.Petitioners "ere not #enie# #ue +rocess o
&a" as evi#ence# by t%eir a++ea& to t%e :nterme#iate A++e&&ate Court,ummary
+rocee#in$ a&&o"e# in ,ection 20 o P.!. 0o. @0PT%is section "as re+ea&e# by
Con$ress. 4o"ever, t%e +etitioners= actions occurre# beore t%e re+ea&. 4ence,
t%e &a" remainso+erative.!ecision o :nterme#iate A++e&&ate Court A8rme#.