> The CSC has standing as real party-in-interest and can appeal CA’s decisions modifying or reversing them, when it would have an adverse impact on the integrity of the civil service. This is the Dacoycoy Doctrine (G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999) and it remains applicable.
> In an administrative case, where the party has been given the opportunity to appeal or seek reconsideration of the action or ruling, defects in procedural due process may be cured.
> The principles of circumstantial evidence under Sec. 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court has been applied in administrative cases, if the following requirements are met:
a) There is more than one circumstance;
b) The facts from which the inferences are derived from are proven; and
c) The circumstantial evidence must constitute an unbroken chain that leads one to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the person accused, to the exclusion of others, as the guilty person.
> The right to cross examine the other party’s witness is not an indispensable aspect of due process in administrative proceedings. A fair and reasonable opportunity to explain one’s side is sufficient to meet the requirements of due process.
> General Manager of Water District is a primarily confidential position. The working relationship between the General Manager and the Board of Directors demands a high degree of trust and confidence.
> A co-terminous position falls under the non-career classification of position in the government service. Republic Act No. 9286 did not convert the General Manager position from non-career to career.
> CSC, DepEd, PRC have concurrent jurisdiction over administrative cases against public school teachers. That which first exercises jurisdiction excludes the others.
> Teachers are duly licensed professionals who must not only be competent but must also possess dignity and a reputation with high moral values. They must strictly adhere to, observe and practice the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers.
> Section 8, Article VIII of the Code instructs that teachers cannot inflict corporal punishment on offending learners. A violation of this rule is tantamount to grave misconduct which is punishable by dismissal.
Trade & Investment Development Corporation of the Philippines (TIDCORP) vs. CSC, G.R. No. 182249, March 5, 2013 (En Banc)
> CSC’s rule-making power, albeit constitutionally granted, is still limited to the implementation and interpretation of the laws it is tasked to enforce.
> The rules that the CSC formulates must not override, but must be in harmony with the law it seeks to apply and implement.
> TIDCORP’s charter expressly exempts it from existing laws on position classification, compensation and qualification standards. As such, the CSC cannot compel TIDCOR to comply with Sec 1(c) Rule 3 of CSC MC No. 40, s. 1998 which requires, as a condition sine qua non for the approval of an appointment, that the position title conform with the rules issued by DBM on Position Allocation List and Index of Occupational Service.
Re: Request for Guidance/Clarification on Sec. 7, Rule III of Republic Act 10154 Requiring Government Employees to Secure a Certification on No Pending Administrative Case from the CSC, A.M No. 13-09-08-SC, October 1, 2013 (En Banc)
> The rule does not apply to employees of the judiciary because under Sec. 6, Article VIII of the Constitution, only the Supreme Court exercises administrative jurisdiction over all courts and court personnel. Thus, it has custody of records pertaining to administrative cases of retiring court personnel.
> Prior clearance from the Office of the President or the Ombudsman on administrative cases also does not apply to retiring court personnel. But, a clearance requirement for criminal cases may be imposed as it is a matter beyond the ambit of the judiciary’s power of administrative supervision.