Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CORTEZ Appeals and Motion For Reconsideration
CORTEZ Appeals and Motion For Reconsideration
Remedies in DEPED
Administrative Cases
APPEALS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
DO 49, S. 2006 – REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION IN
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
1 2
3 4
5 6
1
17/07/2019
7 8
9 10
11 12
2
17/07/2019
13 14
15 16
17 18
3
17/07/2019
19 20
21 22
23 24
4
17/07/2019
25 26
27 28
29 30
5
17/07/2019
31 32
33 34
35 36
6
17/07/2019
37 38
39 40
41 42
7
17/07/2019
The Board shall have the power, after due notice and
hearing, to suspend or revoke the certificate of
registration of any registrant, to reprimand or to
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7836 cancel the temporary/special permit of a holder
AN ACT TO STRENGTHEN THE REGULATION AND SUPERVISION OF THE thereof who is exempt from registration, for any of the
PRACTICE OF TEACHING IN THE PHILIPPINES AND PRESCRIBING A LICENSURE
EXAMINATION FOR TEACHERS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. following causes:
(a) Conviction for any criminal offense by a court of
competent jurisdiction;
(b) Immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable conduct;
(c) Declaration by a court of competent jurisdiction
for being mentally unsound or insane;
43 44
45 46
47 48
8
17/07/2019
49 50
51 52
REMEDIES IN CSC
ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
APPEALS
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
53 54
9
17/07/2019
55 56
57 58
59 60
10
17/07/2019
Per Resolution of the Supreme Court in Bar Matter No. 803 Adopted in
Baguio City on April 8, 1997
61 62
63 64
65 66
11
17/07/2019
RULE 43
APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF TAX APPEALS
AND QUASI-JUDICIAL AGENCIES
RULE 45
APPEAL BY CERTIORARI TO THE
TO THE COURT OF APPEALS SUPREME COURT
SECTION 1. This Rule shall apply to appeals • Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme
from judgments or final orders of the Court Court. — A party desiring to appeal
of Tax Appeals and from awards, by certiorari from a judgment or final
judgments, final orders or resolutions of or order or resolution of the Court of
authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Regional Trial Court or other courts
Among these agencies are the Civil whenever authorized by law, may file with
Service Commission, Central Board of the Supreme Court a verified petition for
Assessment Appeals, Securities and review on certiorari. The petition shall raise
Exchange Commission, Office of the only questions of law which must be
President… distinctly set forth. (1a, 2a)
67 68
RULE 52
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
• Section 1. Period for filing. — A party may file a motion for reconsideration of
a judgment or final resolution within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof,
with proof of service on the adverse party. (n)
• Section 2. Second motion for reconsideration. — No second motion for
THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL
reconsideration of a judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be PROCEDURE
entertained. (n)
(As amended, December 1, 2000)
• Section 3. Resolution of motion. — In the Court of Appeals, a motion for
reconsideration shall be resolved within ninety (90) days from the date when
the court declares it submitted for resolution. (n)
• Section 4. Stay of execution. — The pendency of a motion for
reconsideration filed on time and by the proper party shall stay the
execution of the judgment or final resolution sought to be reconsidered
unless the court, for good reasons, shall otherwise direct. (n)
69 70
71 72
12
17/07/2019
SAMPLE CASE
FACTS OF THE
G.R. No. 183678 March 15, 2010
CASE
RENE VENTENILLA PUSE, Petitioner,
vs.
LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE, Respondent.
73 74
75 76
77 78
13
17/07/2019
79 80
81 82
83 84
14
17/07/2019
85 86
• The Board ruled that contrary to petitioner’s contentions, it had • Aggrieved, petitioner filed a petition for review, docketed as CA-
jurisdiction over petitioner and could validly order the G.R. SP No. 100421, before the Court of Appeals assailing the
revocation of his license, as petitioner was a professional teacher. Resolutions dated 16 February 2007 and 9 July 2007 of the
Under Section 23 of Republic Act No. 7836, otherwise known as Board.
the Philippine Teachers Professionalization Act of 1994, the Board
has the power and authority to regulate the practice of teaching • On 28 March 2008, the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner’s
PROFESSIONAL
in the Philippines. The charge of Immorality and/or Dishonorable COURT OF appeal.The appellate court held that the applicable law was Rep.
REGULATION Conduct is also one (1) of the grounds for the revocation or APPEALS Act No. 4670 or the Magna Carta for Public School
COMMISSION suspension of a license of a professional teacher. For entering
DECISION into a second marriage without first seeking a judicial declaration
DECISION Teachers because petitioner was occupying the position of
Teacher I at the S. Aguirre Elementary School. Under Rep. Act No.
of the presumptive death of his first wife and thereafter
4670, the one (1) tasked to investigate the complaint was the
cohabiting with his second wife and having children with her,
petitioner is liable for Immorality and Dishonorable Conduct. The Board of Professional Teachers. Thus, it was the Board of
Board added that whether respondent had knowledge of the first Professional Teachers that had jurisdiction over the administrative
marriage or not is irrelevant and further found petitioner’s claim case and not the Civil Service Commission (CSC) or the
that his cohabitation with respondent was under duress, force or Department of Education (DepEd) as contended by petitioner. As
intimidation untenable. Citing Section 3, Article III and Section 3, to the finding of immorality and/or dishonorable conduct, the
Article XI of the Code of Ethics of Professional Teachers, and Court of Appeals agreed with the Board in finding as untenable
the Oath of Professionals, the Board also explained that petitioner’s excuse that he believed his first wife to be dead and
petitioner’s official life cannot be detached from his personal life, that his first marriage was no longer subsisting. It said that
contrary to his contention that the acts complained of were
petitioner should have applied for a judicial order declaring his
purely private. His immorality and dishonorable conduct
demonstrate his unfitness to continue practicing his profession as first wife presumptively dead before marrying respondent. It
he is no longer the embodiment of a role model for young further found without merit petitioner’s defense that the
elementary school pupils, the Board ruled. complaint is of a private nature, explaining that his actions relate
• Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the decision but his to the very nature of his career: to teach, mold and guide the
motion was denied by the Board per Resolution dated 9 July youth to moral righteousness.
2007.
87 88
89 90
15
17/07/2019
• Petitioner’s contentions are without merit. • It must be remembered, however, that petitioner was
charged before the Board of Professional Teachers
• Petitioner’s allegation of improper venue under Rep. Act No. 7836 and not under Civil Service
and the fact that the complaint was not Law, Rules and Regulations. Under Section 23 of Rep.
SC DECISION under oath are not sufficient grounds for SC DECISION Act No. 7836, the Board has the power to suspend
FOR FOR or revoke the certificate of registration of any teacher
ARGUMENT the dismissal of the complaint. Well to ARGUMENT for any causes mentioned in said section, one (1) of
11 remember, the case was an administrative 3 which is immoral, unprofessional or dishonorable
case and as such, technical rules of conduct. The Board has the discretion, taking into
account the circumstances obtaining, to impose the
procedure are liberally applied. In penalty of suspension or revocation. In the imposition
administrative cases, technical rules of of the penalty, the Board is not guided by Section 22 of
procedure and evidence are not strictly Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and
Regulations which provides for suspension for six (6)
applied and administrative due process months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first
cannot be fully equated with due process offense, and dismissal for the second offense for
in its strict judicial sense.The intention is disgraceful and immoral conduct. Petitioner, therefore,
cannot insist that Section 22 be applied to him in the
to resolve disputes brought before such imposition of his penalty, because the Board’s basis is
bodies in the most expeditious and Section 23 of Rep. Act No. 7836 which does not
inexpensive manner possible. consider whether the offense was committed the first
or second time.
91 92
93
16