Casalan
, A.M. No. RTJ-14-2385, April 20, 2016)
…
in view of the voluminous case load of some
trial court judges, generally allows for a reasonable
extension of time to decide cases and the pending
incidents thereof. The judge merely has to request
for such extension if he, for good reasons, is unable
to comply with the prescribed three-month period.
We have also been consistent in holding that the
delay of a judge of a lower court in resolving
motions and incidents within the reglementary
period as prescribed by the Constitution is not
excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. In this
case,
Judge
Reyes
failed
to
act,
within
the
prescribed period, on the case and the motions filed
by both Bancil and Krieger. Necessarily, an
administrative sanction is in order. (
Bancil v. Reyes
,
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1869, July 27, 2016)
Article IX-B
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
GOCCs
Based on the above, the
sui generis
status of the
PNRC is now sufficiently established. Although it
is neither a subdivision, agency, or instrumentality
of the government, nor a government-owned or -
controlled corporation or a subsidiary thereof, as
succinctly explained in the Decision of July 15,
2009, so much so that respondent, under the
Decision, was correctly allowed to hold his position
as Chairman thereof concurrently while he served
as a Senator, such a conclusion does not
ipso facto
imply that the PNRC is a "private corporation"
within the contemplation of the provision of the
Constitution, that must be organized under the
Corporation Code. As correctly mentioned by
Justice Roberto A. Abad,
the
sui generis
character
of PNRC requires us to approach controversies
involving the PNRC on a case-to-case basis.
In this particular case, the CA did not err in ruling
that the CSC has jurisdiction over the PNRC
because the issue at hand is the enforcement of
labor laws and penal statutes, thus, in this
particular matter, the PNRC can be treated as a
GOCC, and as such, it is within the ambit of Rule I,
Section 1 of the Implementing Rules of Republic
Act 6713 xxx.
(
Torres v. De Leon
, G.R. No. 199440,
January 18, 2016)
NOTES ON POLITICAL LAW
Excerpts from the 2016 Decisions of the Supreme Court
by
Atty. C
ARLO
L
.
C
RUZ
52
We find error with the NLRC taking cognizance of
the cases against Metro and LRTA as far as the
monetary claims are concerned. This is despite the
fact that LRTA is a government-owned and
controlled corporation with an original charter.
xxx. The NLRC acquired jurisdiction over LRTA
not because of the employer-employee relationship
of the respondents and LRTA (because there is
none) but rather because LRTA expressly assumed
the monetary obligations of Metro to its employees.
In
the
Agreement,
LRTA
was
obligated
to
reimburse
Metro
for
the
latter's
Operating
Expenses which included the salaries, wages and
fringe benefits of certain employees of Metro. xxx.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 99 pages?
