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?