Philippine Administrative System

INSTRUCTION:Answer the questions clearly and concisely.Your answers should demonstrate your knowledge of Legal Doctrine and for the Quality of your Legal Reasoning.

CASE NO. 1

Facts of the Case:

Dr Apple, 55 years old, had been working in the National Institute of Science and Technology for 28 years. She was holding the position Scientist Research Associate IV when she was appointed as Science Research Supervisor II. Her appointment was approved by the CSC in 1978. The position was previously held by Dr Kint who recommended Dr Venice to his position. Dr Venice contested the position. Dr Amiable, the one who appointed DR. Apple, averred that DR. Apple's appointment was approved by the NIST evaluation Committee which gave 88 points to DR. Apple and 66 points to DR. Venice. The issue was elevated to the Office of the president by DR. Venice. DR. Claire was then the Presidential Executive Assistant. Pursuant to PD 807 or the Civil Service Decree, DR. Claire referred the issue to the CSC. DR. Claire was also holding the chairmanship of the CSC. DR. Claire issued Res 1178 appointing DR. Venice to the contested position. After the denial of her motion for the reconsideration of that resolution, or on January 5, 1980, DR. Apple appealed to the Office of the President of the Philippines. Since DR. Claire was holding the office ofPEA he just affirmed his decision as the CSC chairman.

ISSUE:Whether or not Dr. Apple was denied due process of law.

Philippine Administrative System

INSTRUCTION:Answer the questions clearly and concisely.Your answers should demonstrate your knowledge of Legal Doctrine and for the Quality of your Legal Reasoning.

CASE NO. 1

Facts of the Case:

Dr Apple, 55 years old, had been working in the National Institute of Science and Technology for 28 years. She was holding the position Scientist Research Associate IV when she was appointed as Science Research Supervisor II. Her appointment was approved by the CSC in 1978. The position was previously held by Dr Kint who recommended Dr Venice to his position. Dr Venice contested the position. Dr Amiable, the one who appointed DR. Apple, averred that DR. Apple's appointment was approved by the NIST evaluation Committee which gave 88 points to DR. Apple and 66 points to DR. Venice. The issue was elevated to the Office of the president by DR. Venice. DR. Claire was then the Presidential Executive Assistant. Pursuant to PD 807 or the Civil Service Decree, DR. Claire referred the issue to the CSC. DR. Claire was also holding the chairmanship of the CSC. DR. Claire issued Res 1178 appointing DR. Venice to the contested position. After the denial of her motion for the reconsideration of that resolution, or on January 5, 1980, DR. Apple appealed to the Office of the President of the Philippines. Since DR. Claire was holding the office ofPEA he just affirmed his decision as the CSC chairman.

ISSUE:Whether or not Dr. Apple was denied due process of law.