You are on page 1of 4

National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration v.

CSC, 221 SCRA 145


Secretary of DOTC v. Mabalot, 378 SCRA 129 (2002)
Preclaro v. Sandiganbayan, 247 SCRA 454 (1995)
Maniego v. People, 88 Phil. 494 (1951)
Laurel v. Desierto, 381 SCRA 48 (2002)
Fernandez v. Sto. Tomas, 242 SCRA 192 (1995)
Segovia v. Noel, 47 Phil. 543 (1925)
Dario v. Mison, 176 SCRA 84 (1989)
Mathay v. Court of Appeals, 320 SCRA 703 (1999)
Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016
Labo, Jr. v. Comelec, 211 SCRA 297 (1992)
Frivaldo v. Comelec, 275 SCRA 727 (1996)
Bengzon v. HRET, 357 SCRA 545 (2001)
Mercado v. Manzano, 307 SCRA 630 (1999)
Romualdez-Marcos v. Comelec, 248 SCRA 300 (1995)
AJSS v. Calilung, G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 194 SCRA 317 (1991)
Rodriguez v. Comelec, 259 SCRA 296 (1996)
Lecaroz v. Sandiganbayan, 305 SCRA 396 (1999)
Dela Cruz v. Commission on Audit, 371 SCRA 157 (2001)
Flores v. Drilon, 223 SCRA 568 (1993)
Abeto v. Garceza, 251 SCRA 539 (1995)
Rabe v. Flores, 272 SCRA 415 (1997)
Debugaldo v. Civil Service Commission, 237 SCRA 184 (1994)
Civil Service Commission v. Dacoycoy, 306 SCRA 425 (1999)
Liban v. Gordon, G.R. No. 175352 (2009)
Risos Vidal and Lim v. COMELEC and Estrada, G.R. No. 206666, Jan. 21, 2015
Luego v. Civil Service Commission, 143 SCRA 327 (1986)
Regis v. Osmeña, 197 SCRA 308 (1991)
Achacoso v. Macaraig, 195 SCRA 235 (1991)
Province of Camarines Sur v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 281 (1995)
Gloria v. De Guzman, 249 SCRA 281 (1995)
PLM v. IAC, 140 SCRA 22 (1985)
Marohombsar v. Alonto, 194 SCRA 391 (1991)
Matibag v. Benipayo, 380 SCRA 49 (2002)
Padilla v. Civil Service Commission, 403 SCRA 116 (2003)
Civil Service Commission v. Dela Cruz, 437 SCRA 403 (2004)
Civil Service Commission v. Darangina, 513 SCRA 648 (2007)
Corpuz v. Court of Appeals, 285 SCRA 23 (1998)
Lapinid v. CSC, G.R. No. 96298, May 14, 1991
Gen. Manager, PPA v. Monserate, 381 SCRA 200 (2002)
Sarmiento v. Mison, 156 SCRA 549 (1987)
Calderon v. Carale, 208 SCRA 254 (1992)
De Castro v. Judicial & Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, Mar 17, 2010
Aytona v. Castillo, et al., G.R. No. L-19313, Jan 19, 1962
Velicaria-Garafil v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 203372, June 16, 2015

Juco v. NLRC, 277 SCRA 528 (1997)

EIIB v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 373 (1998)

Chua v. Civil Service Commission, 206 SCRA 65 (1992)

Cuevas v. Bacal, 347 SCRA 338 (2000)


PAGCOR v. Rilloraza, 359 SCRA 525 (2001)
Luego v. Civil Service Commission, supra
Aquino v. Civil Service Commission, 208 SCRA 240 (1992)
Delos Santos v. Mallare, 87 Phil. 288 (1950)
Tria v. Sto. Tomas, 199 SCRA 833 (1991)
Laurel v. Civil Service Commission, 203 SCRA 195 (1991)
Griño v. Civil Service Commission, 194 SCRA 458 (1991)
Obiasca v. Basallote (2010)
Province of Camarines Sur v.Gonzales, G.R. No. 185740, July 23, 2013
CSC Resolution 0001156, Carmencita Reyes re appointment of Provincial Administrator, May 12, 2000
Dimaandal v. COA, 291 SCRA 322 (1998)
Menzon v. Petilla, 197 SCRA 251 (1991)
Malaluan v. COMELEC, 254 SCRA 397 (1996)
Flores v. Drilon, supra
Torres v. Ribo, 81 Phil. 44 (1948)
Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan, 249 SCRA 342 (1995)
Monroy v. Court of Appeals, 20 SCRA 620 (1967)
CLU v. Executive Secretary, supra
Gen. Manager, PPA v. Monserate, supra
Tarrosa v. Singson, 232 SCRA 553 (1994)
Mendoza v. Allas, 302 SCRA 623 (1999)
Romualdez v. Civil Service Commission, 225 SCRA 285 (1993)
Republic of the Phils. v. Sereno, G.R. No. 237428, May 11, 2018
compliance with the legal requirements is essential for effectivity

when an appointee assumes position, acquires legal right


Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivision, instrumentalities
and agencies of the government, including government owned or
controlled corporations with original charter.

All government agencies, without exception, are covered by civil


service. EIIB is only exempted relative to appointment and other
personnel actions but not from the Civil Service Law or Civil Service
Rules and Regulations.

Co-terminus employees may be considered as casual and


emergency employees by the doctrine of necessary implication
which holds that "what is implied in a statute is as much a part
thereof as that which is expressed"
Security of tenure in the CESO is acquired with respect to rank and
not to position.

l Administrator, May 12, 2000

Only solicitor general or person claiming to be entitled to a public offic


Quo warranto cannot be forced against successor
Action for quo warranto one year fro ouster