Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

GEMMA P. CABALIT v. COA-REGION VII

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR Nos. 172532 & 172544-45 2013-11-20	PRIMO C. MIRO v. MARILYN MENDOZA VDA. DE EREDEROS BRION, J.
This rule was reiterated in Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII,[13] where we held that: When the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are supported by substantial evidence, it should be considered as conclusive. This Court recognizes the expertise and independence of the Ombudsman and will avoid interfering with its findings absent a finding of grave abuse of discretion. Hence, being supported by substantial evidence, we find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Ombudsman which are affirmed by the CA.
	GR No. 173121 2013-04-03	FRANKLIN ALEJANDRO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FACT-FINDING BRION, J.
Section 15 of RA 6770[27] reveals the manifest intent of the lawmakers to give the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. This provision covers the entire range of administrative activities attendant to administrative adjudication, including, among others, the authority to receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the corresponding penalty.[28]
	GR No. 163859 2012-08-15	DR. FERNANDO A. MELENDRES v. PRESIDENTIAL ANTI-GRAFT COMMISSION VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. It is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself. In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. More often, this opportunity is conferred through written pleadings that the parties submit to present their charges and defenses.[19] But as long as a party is given the opportunity to defend his or her interests in due course, said party is not denied due process.[20]
	GR No. 165132 2012-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NELLIE R. APOLONIO BRION, J.
We affirmed and consistently applied this ruling in the cases of Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII,[41] Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing,[42] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[43] Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja,[44] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[45] Office of the Ombudsman v. Lucero,[46] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[47]