Personal Data Sheet

Civil Service rules mandate the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet (PDS) as a requirement for employment in the government. It is the repository of all information about any government employee and official regarding his/her personal background, qualification and eligibility. Considering that the truthful completion of PDS is a requirement for employment in the Judiciary (as well as in any government agency), the importance of answering the same with candor need not be gainsaid. Time and again, the Court has stressed that the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from the judges to the most junior clerk, is circumscribed with heavy responsibility. Dishonesty is considered a grave offense.

Right to retention is a constitutional right; Item 4 of DAR A.O. 05-06 is null & void.

Laws, as well as the issuances promulgated to implement them, enjoy the presumption of validity. However, administrative regulations that alter or amend the statute or enlarge or impair its scope are void, and the courts not only may, but it is their obligation to strike down such regulations.

ITEM 4 of DAR Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 2006 does not indicate that a multiple or series of transfers/sales of land would result in the loss of retention rights. Neither do they provide that the multiple or series of transfers or sales amount to the waiver of retention right of the landowner. Thus, ITEM 4 of said DAR Administrative Order is patently null and void. The presumption of validity cannot be accorded to it for being ultra vires. Administrative regulations must be in harmony with the provisions of the law as they cannot extend or amend a legislative enactment. Administrative issuances must not override, but must remain consistent with the law they seek to apply and implement.

Admittedly, administrative regulations issued by the Department Head in conformity with the law have the force of law. However, since Department Heads exercise the rule making power by delegation of the lawmaking body, it is requisite that they should not transcend the bounds demarcated by the statute for the exercise of that power. Otherwise, they would be improperly exercising legislative power in his own right and not as a surrogate of the lawmaking body.

While the Court is mindful of the DAR's commitment to the implementation of Agrarian Reform, it must be conceded that departmental zeal may not be permitted to outrun the authority conferred by statute. There must be no over reaching. Otherwise the rule of law becomes a myth.

(GR No. 176549, January 20, 2016).

Inhibition

Judges must be free to judge without pressure or influence from external sources or factors. They should not be subject to intimidation or to the fear of civil, criminal or administrative sanctions for acts they do and dispositions they make in the performance of their duties and functions. Voluntary inhibition is primarily a matter of conscience  and sound discretion on the part of the judge based on his/her rational and logical assessment of the case. Bare allegations of bias and prejudice are not enough, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence, to overcome the presumption that a judge will undertake his noble role to dispense justice according to law and evidence without fear or favor.

Failure to Sign in the Roll of Attorneys

While practice of law is not a right but a privilege, the Court will not withhold this privilege from individuals who have shown mental fitness and moral fiber to withstand the rigors of the profession. The unauthorized practice of law by one assuming to be an attorney or officer of the court and acting as such without authority, constitute indirect contempt of court. This applies to law students and Bar candidates. They are bound to comport themselves in accordance with the ethical standards of the legal profession.

Failure to Sign the Roll of Attorneys for those who passed the Bar does not make one a full-fledged member of the Philippine Bar. Hence, practicing law without having signed the Roll of Attorneys is considered unauthorized practice of law.