Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 173 views

    Larin v. Exec Sec. Digested

    Uploaded by

    Gracia Sullano
    The petitioner, Aquilino Larin, was an Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) who was accused in two criminal cases. An executive committee was created by presidential order to investigate the administrative charges against him. However, the petitioner argued that the committee lacked jurisdiction over him. Meanwhile, the president issued an order streamlining the BIR and abolishing the petitioner's office, without reinstating him. Instead, he was dismissed through an administrative order for being guilty of grave misconduct related to the criminal cases. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was invalid because as a career service officer, the petitioner had security of tenure rights that protected him from removal except for specific legal causes, which were not present

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Larin v. Exec Sec. Digested

    Uploaded by

    Gracia Sullano
    173 views3 pages
    The petitioner, Aquilino Larin, was an Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) who was accused in two criminal cases. An executive committee was created by presidential order to investigate the administrative charges against him. However, the petitioner argued that the committee lacked jurisdiction over him. Meanwhile, the president issued an order streamlining the BIR and abolishing the petitioner's office, without reinstating him. Instead, he was dismissed through an administrative order for being guilty of grave misconduct related to the criminal cases. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was invalid because as a career service officer, the petitioner had security of tenure rights that protected him from removal except for specific legal causes, which were not present

    Original Title

    Larin-v.-Exec-Sec.-digested..docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner, Aquilino Larin, was an Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) who was accused in two criminal cases. An executive committee was created by presidential order to investigate the administrative charges against him. However, the petitioner argued that the committee lacked jurisdiction over him. Meanwhile, the president issued an order streamlining the BIR and abolishing the petitioner's office, without reinstating him. Instead, he was dismissed through an administrative order for being guilty of grave misconduct related to the criminal cases. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was invalid because as a career service officer, the petitioner had security of tenure rights that protected him from removal except for specific legal causes, which were not present

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    173 views3 pages

    Larin v. Exec Sec. Digested

    Uploaded by

    Gracia Sullano
    The petitioner, Aquilino Larin, was an Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) who was accused in two criminal cases. An executive committee was created by presidential order to investigate the administrative charges against him. However, the petitioner argued that the committee lacked jurisdiction over him. Meanwhile, the president issued an order streamlining the BIR and abolishing the petitioner's office, without reinstating him. Instead, he was dismissed through an administrative order for being guilty of grave misconduct related to the criminal cases. The Supreme Court ruled that the dismissal was invalid because as a career service officer, the petitioner had security of tenure rights that protected him from removal except for specific legal causes, which were not present

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila

    EN BANC

    G.R. No. 112745 October 16, 1997

    AQUILINO T. LARIN, petitioner, 
    vs.
    THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF FINANCE,
    COMMISSIONER OF THE BUREAU OF INTERNAL REVENUE AND
    THE COMMITTEE CREATED TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATIVE
    COMPLAINT AGAINST AQUILINO T. LARIN, COMPOSED OF
    FRUMENCIO A. LAGUSTAN, JOSE B. ALEJANDRINO AND JAIME M.
    MAZA, respondents.

    Facts:
    Petitioner Aquilino Larin is the Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal
    Revenue, and he also appears to be a co- accused in two criminal cases for violating
    Section 268(4) of the National Internal Revenue Code and Section 3 of R.A. 3019.
    Subsequently petitioner was convicted and this was reported to the President, the then
    Senior Deputy Executive Secretary by the authority of the president issued Memo order
    164 creating an executive committee to investigate the administrative charges. The
    committee required that petitioner filed a position paper with regard to the charges
    against him, the petitioner complied, and however his statement was that he cannot
    comment on the merits of the case for fear of being cited in contempt by the court.
    Petitioner also alleged that the committee doesn’t have any jurisdiction over his person,
    that the case cannot be validly filed without violating res judicata, his rights against
    double jeopardy and lastly to proceed with the investigation would be redundant and
    oppressive against him. While all this is pending, the president issued an order for the
    streamlining of BIR, in which case the office of the petitioner was abolished by the
    order. His office being abolished, the petitioner was not reinstated as an assistant
    commissioner of BIR, instead another Administrative order was issued in which it stated
    that he is being dismissed for being guilty of grave misconduct in connection to the
    criminal cases filed against him.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the dismissal of the petitioner was valid or not?

    Ruling:
    No, as a career service officer, petitioner enjoys the right to security of
    tenure. No less than the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of security of tenure of
    the employees of the civil service. Specifically, Section 36 of P.D. No. 807, as amended,
    otherwise known as Civil Service Decree of the Philippines, is emphatic that career
    service officers and employees who enjoy security of tenure may be removed only for
    any of the causes enumerated in said law. In other words, the fact that petitioner is a
    presidential appointee does not give the appointing authority the license to remove him
    at will or at his pleasure for it is an admitted fact that he is likewise a career service
    officer who under the law is the recipient of tenurial protection, thus, may only be
    removed for a cause and in accordance with procedural due process.

    We are not unaware of the rule that since administrative cases are independent
    from criminal actions for the same act or omission, the dismissal or acquittal of the
    criminal charge does not foreclose the institution of administrative action nor carry with it
    the relief from administrative liability. However, the circumstantial setting of the instant
    case sets it miles apart from the foregoing rule and placed it well within the exception.
    Corollarily, where the very basis of the administrative case against petitioner is his
    conviction in the criminal action which was later on set aside by this Court upon a
    categorical and clear finding that the acts for which he was administratively held liable
    are not unlawful and irregular, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case
    necessarily entails the dismissal of the administrative action against him, because in
    such a case, there is no more basis nor justifiable reason to maintain the administrative
    suit.

    You might also like