Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Chua Vs Civil Service Commission

    Uploaded by

    Freiah
    This case involves whether a petitioner who was a contractual employee of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) was entitled to benefits under R.A. No. 6683, which provides early retirement benefits. The Civil Service Commission denied the petition, finding contractual employees were not covered. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioner was qualified, finding no substantial difference between casual, emergency, and contractual employees, who are all tenurial with no fixed term. The Court applied the doctrine of necessary implications, finding what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed, and the statute aimed to cover all temporary employees regardless of label.

    Copyright:

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

    Chua Vs Civil Service Commission

    Uploaded by

    Freiah
    1K views2 pages
    This case involves whether a petitioner who was a contractual employee of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) was entitled to benefits under R.A. No. 6683, which provides early retirement benefits. The Civil Service Commission denied the petition, finding contractual employees were not covered. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioner was qualified, finding no substantial difference between casual, emergency, and contractual employees, who are all tenurial with no fixed term. The Court applied the doctrine of necessary implications, finding what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed, and the statute aimed to cover all temporary employees regardless of label.

    Original Description:

    G.R. No. 88979 Case Digest by: Cristina Alas-as

    Original Title

    Chua vs Civil Service Commission

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves whether a petitioner who was a contractual employee of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) was entitled to benefits under R.A. No. 6683, which provides early retirement benefits. The Civil Service Commission denied the petition, finding contractual employees were not covered. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioner was qualified, finding no substantial difference between casual, emergency, and contractual employees, who are all tenurial with no fixed term. The Court applied the doctrine of necessary implications, finding what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed, and the statute aimed to cover all temporary employees regardless of label.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Chua Vs Civil Service Commission

    Uploaded by

    Freiah
    This case involves whether a petitioner who was a contractual employee of the National Irrigation Administration (NIA) was entitled to benefits under R.A. No. 6683, which provides early retirement benefits. The Civil Service Commission denied the petition, finding contractual employees were not covered. The Supreme Court ruled the petitioner was qualified, finding no substantial difference between casual, emergency, and contractual employees, who are all tenurial with no fixed term. The Court applied the doctrine of necessary implications, finding what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as what is expressed, and the statute aimed to cover all temporary employees regardless of label.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Chua vs.

    Civil Service Commission


    GR No. 33140, October 23, 1978
    Doctrine of Necessary Implications, What is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as
    that which is expressed
    Facts: R.A. No 6683 provides for benefits of early retirement and voluntary separation from the
    government service as well as for involuntary separation due to reorganization. Deemed
    qualified are those enumerated on Sec 2 of the Act:
    Sec. 2. Coverage. This Act shall cover all appointive officials and employees of the National
    Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, as
    well as the personnel of all local government units. The benefits authorized under this Act shall
    apply to all regular, temporary, casual and emergency employees, regardless of age, who have
    rendered at least a total of two (2) consecutive years of government service as of the date of
    separation. Uniformed personnel of the Armed Forces of the Philippines including those of the
    PC-INP are excluded from the coverage of this Act.
    Petitioner believing that she is qualified to avail the said benefits she filed for an application to
    the NIA, which denied said application and instead she was offered separation benefits
    equivalent to month basic payment for every year of her service. The Civil Service
    Commission denied the petition as well alleging that contractual employees are not qualified for
    the benefits and in a s much as her employment her services is co-terminous with the NIA
    project which is contractual in nature.
    Issue; W/N petitioner is entitled of the benefit under R.A. No 6683
    Held: The petitioner is qualified to receive the benefits under R.A. No. 6683.
    What substantial differences exist, if any, between casual, emergency, seasonal, project,
    co-terminous or contractual personnel? All are tenurial employees with no fixed term, noncareer, and temporary.
    A co-terminous employee is a non-career civil servant, like casual and emergency
    employees. We see no solid reason why the latter are extended benefits under the Early
    Retirement Law but the former are not. It will be noted that Rep. Act No. 6683 expressly extends
    its benefits for early retirement to regular, temporary, casual andemergency employees. But
    specifically excluded from the benefits are uniformed personnel of the AFP including those of
    the PC-INP. It can be argued that, expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The legislature would
    not have made a specific enumeration in a statute had not the intention been to restrict its
    meaning and confine its terms and benefits to those expressly mentioned or casus omissus pro
    omisso habendus est A person, object or thing omitted from an enumeration must be held to
    have been omitted intentionally. Yet adherence to these legal maxims can result in incongruities
    and in a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
    No statute can be enacted that can provide all the details involved in its application.
    There is always an omission that may not meet a particular situation. What is thought, at the
    Case Digest and Notes - Cristina Alas-as

    time of enactment, to be an all-embracing legislation may be inadequate to provide for the


    unfolding events of the future. So-called gaps in the law develop as the law is enforced. One of
    the rules of statutory construction used to fill in the gap is the doctrine of necessary implication.
    The doctrine states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is
    expressed. Every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all such provisions as may be
    necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective rights, powers, privileges or
    jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and subsidiary consequences as may be
    fairly and logically inferred from its terms. Ex necessitate legis. And every statutory grant of
    power, right or privilege is deemed to include all incidental power, right or privilege. This is so
    because the greater includes the lesser, expressed in the Maxim, in eo plus sit, simper inest et
    minus.

    Case Digest and Notes - Cristina Alas-as

    You might also like