G.R. No. 80455-56 April 10, 1989 CENTRAL BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES and ANGELA P. JORDAN, petitioners, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION and BASILAO E. BORJA, respondents.
funa vs. cscFull description
Digested cases for Admin LawFull description
digestFull description
admin digestFull description
mechanical departmentFull description
Canadian Securities Course Notes
Norma NS-Descripción completa
Norma Sistec del EAAB.Descripción completa
waffen revue 85
Norma Sistec del EAAB.
digest of Sinon v. CSC case for Public Officers
Case DigestsFull description
Im not the owner, just want to share it. All credits to the Author. thank youFull description
eBook Csc Rh
Sample quiz on Philippine ConstitutionFull description
CSC v. SojorFull description
Proposal CSC253 2014
Medenilla vs CSC Facts: - Petit Petition ioner er Ardeli Ardeliza za Medenil Medenilla la was a contra contractu ctual al employe employee e of the Depart Departmen mentt of Pu Publi blic c or!s or!s and "i#hwa "i#hways ys $DP"% $DP"% occup occupyin yin# # the posit position ion of Pu Publ blic ic &elations '(cer ))* - )n +,./ +,./ Meden Medenil illa la was detai detaile led d as 0ec 0echn hnic ical al Assis Assista tant nt in the the '(ce '(ce of the the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Manpower Mana#ement* - Pursuan Pursuantt to 12ecuti 12ecutive ve 'rder 'rder 3o* 3o* +45 +45 dated dated 6anuary 6anuary 78/ +,./ +,./ a reor#a reor#aniza nization tion ensue ensued d withi within n the DP" DP" and all the positi positions ons ther therein ein were were abolis abolished hed** A revised sta(n# pattern to#ether with the #uidelines on the selection and placement of personnel was issued* )ncluded in the revised sta(n# pattern pattern is the contested position of Supervisin# "uman &esource Development '(cer* 'n 6anuary 4/ +,,/ the petitioner was appointed to the disputed position* - 'n 6anuary 6anuary 4./ 4./ +,,/ +,,/ respo responden ndents ts Ampar Amparo o Dellosa Dellosa// &osal &osalinda inda 6uria 6uria and and Marita Marita 9urdeos to#ether with Matilde An#eles/ Catalina 1spinas/ Alicia 3ercelles and &amon &acela/ all of whom are employees in the "uman &esource 0rainin# and and Mate Materi rial al Deve Develo lopm pmen entt Divi Divisi sion on// Admin dminis istr trat ativ ive e and and Manp Manpow ower er Mana#ement Service of the DP"/ ointly lod#ed a protest before the DP" tas! force on reor#anization contestin# the appointment of the petitioner to the position* 0hey alle#e that since they are ne2t-in-ran! employees/ one of them should have been appointed to the said position* - 0he tas! tas! force force on reor# reor#ani anizat zation ion dismi dismiss ssed ed the prote protest st on Au#ust Au#ust 4/ +,,* +,,* 0he CSC reversed and held that petitioner was was not ;uali
)ssues: >3 petitioner petitioner is ;uali
-
-
0he SC held that petitioner possesses the re;uisite e2perience for the position* 0he petitioner/ not only was a cum laude #raduate from the niversity of the Philippines/ she has also ac;uired plenty of e2perience in the
&e ne2t-in-ran! rule - CSC=s contention that the petitioner must possess superior ;uali
-
