Constitutional Law 1 Chapter 12 Case digest Juco v National Labor Relations Commission [G.R. No.

. 98107, August 18, 1997] Facts: Petitioner was hired as a project engineer of respondent National Housing Corporation. He was separated from the service for having been implicated in a crime of theft and/or malversation of public funds. Petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against the NHC with the Department of Labor. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision dismissing the case on the ground that the NLRC has no jurisdiction over the case. Petitioner elevated the case to the NLRC which reversed the Labor Arbiters decision. NHC appealed before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the NLRC and reinstated the Labor Arbiters decision. Petitioner filed with the Civil Service Commission a complaint for illegal dismissal. CSC dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a complaint before the NLRC for illegal dismissal. The NLRC, through the Labor Arbiter, ruled that petitioner was illegally dismissed. The NHC appealed before the NLRC which reversed the Labor Arbiter for lack of jurisdiction. Issue: Whether or not petitioner is governed by the Labor Code, hence, under the jurisdiction of the NLRC Held: The civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government owned and controlled corporations with original charter. The phrase with original charter means that GOCC refer to corporations chartered by special law as distinguished from corporations organized under the Corporation Code. NHC has been incorporated under the former corporation law, hence, it is a GOCC without original charter. NLRC, not the CSC, has jurisdiction. Francisco v House of Representatives [G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003] Facts: Issue: Held: Lacson v Executive Secretary [G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999] Facts: Eleven persons allegedly members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang were slain by elements of the Anti-Bank Robbery and Intelligence Task Group (ABRITG). Said task group was composed of police officers from Traffic Management Command (TMG), Presidential Anti-Crime Commission Task Force Habagat (PACC-TFH), Central Police District and the Criminal Investigation Command. Petitioner, Chief Superintendent Lacson was then the head of PACC-TFH. A member of the CIC exposed, however, that what transpired was summary execution. A panel of investigators headed by the Deputy Ombudsman for Military Affairs absolved from criminal liability PNP officers who were allegedly involved. The Overall Deputy Ombudsman modified the panels finding and recommended the indictment for multiple murder against 26 respondents including petitioner. The recommendation was approved by the Ombudsman. Petitioner was among those charged as principal before the Sandiganbayan. Acting on motion for reconsideration, petitioner was charged as accessory, in an amended information, by the Ombudsman. The amended information was admitted and ordered the cases transferred to the QC RTC. The Office of the Special Prosecutor moved for reconsideration and insisted that the case should remain in the Sandiganbayan. While the motion was pending, R.A. No. 8249, which re-defined and expanded the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, was enacted. The Sandiganbayan granted the motion of the Office of the Special Prosecutor in accordance to the new law. Issue: Whether or not R.A. No. 8249 was valid Held: Honasan v Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the Department of Justice [G.R. No. 159747, April 13, 2004] Facts: Senator Honasan was positively identified by a high ranking officer of the AFP as a co-conspirator for the coup detat committed on July 27, 2003 by military personnel who occupied Oakwood. An affidavit-complaint was filed with the DOJ by respondent Matillano. Panel of Investigation Prosecutors (DOJ Panel) sent a subpoena to petitioner for preliminary investigation. Petitioner questioned DOJs jurisdiction over the case. He asserted that since the imputed acts were committed in relation to his public office, it is the Office of the Ombudsman, not the DOJ, that has the jurisdiction to conduct the corresponding preliminary investigation; that should the charge be filed in court, it is the Sandiganbayan, not the regular courts, that can legally take cognizance of the case considering that he belongs to the group of public officials with Salary Grade 31. Issue: Whether or not the DOJ Panel has jurisdiction over the case Held: The Ombudsman has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan. In the exercise of its primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of the government, the investigation of such cases. Lastimosa v Ombudsman [G.R. No. 116801, April 6, 1995] Facts: Issue: Held: Feliciano v Commission on Audit [G.R. No. 147402, January 14, 2004] Facts: Issue: Held: University of the Philippines v Regino [G.R. No. 88167, May 3, 1993] Facts: Issue: Held: Macalino v Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 140199-200, February 6, 2002] Facts: Issue: Held: Khan v Ombudsman [G.R. No. 125296, July 20, 2006] Facts: Issue:

1|Page

Constitutional Law 1 Chapter 12 Case digest Held: Leyson v Ombudsman [G.R. No. 134990, April 27, 2000] Facts: Issue: Held: Villavert v Desierto [G.R. No. 133715, February 23, 2000] Facts: Issue: Held: Binay v Sandiganbayan [G.R. Nos. 120681-83, October 1, 1999] Facts: Issue: Held:

2|Page