Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RUPERTO A. AMBIL v. SANDIGANBAYAN

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 156577 2014-12-03	ALEJANDRO C. RIVERA v. PEOPLE MENDOZA, J.
The Court rules that the petitioners gave unwarranted benefits to PAL Boat and its manager, Palanas, especially in its pre-qualification. The word "unwarranted" means lacking adequate or official support; unjustified; unauthorized or without justification or adequate reason. "Advantage" means a more favorable or improved position or condition; benefit, profit or gain of any kind; benefit from some course of action. "Preference" signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirability; choice or estimation above another.[38]
	GR No. 213181 2014-08-19	FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA v. CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO MENDOZA, J.
In Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan and People,[60] we characterized what makes up the power of supervision: On the other hand, the power of supervision means "overseeing or the authority of an officer to see to it that the subordinate officers perform their duties." If the subordinate officers fail or neglect to fulfill their duties, the official may take such action or step as prescribed by law to make them perform their duties. Essentially, the power of supervision means no more than the power of ensuring that laws are faithfully executed, or that subordinate officers act within the law. The supervisor or superintendent merely sees to it that the rules are followed, but he does not lay down the rules, nor does he have discretion to modify or replace them.[61]
	GR No. 196231 2014-01-28	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
On December 10, 2009, the MOLEO-Records Section forwarded Mendoza, et al.'s case records to the Criminal Investigation, Prosecution and Administrative Bureau-MOLEO. On December 14, 2009, the case was assigned to Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer (GIPO) Dennis Garcia for review and recommendation.[14]
	GR No. 163210 2008-08-13	LEPANTO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY v. MORENO DUMAPIS AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Lastly, respondents' prayer in their Comment[48] and Memorandum,[49] that the CA Decision be modified by ordering their reinstatement to their former positions without loss of seniority rights and with payment of full backwages from their alleged dismissal up to date of reinstatement, deserves scant consideration. Respondents are estopped from claiming their right to reinstatement. Records show that respondents along with their co-accused, filed an appeal with the CA docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 75457 questioning the decision of the NLRC. The said appeal was denied by the CA. The case was then elevated to this Court through a petition for review, entitled Thomas Garcia v. Court of Appeals, docketed as G.R. No. 162554. However, the same was denied with finality for having been filed out of time.[50] In effect, it serves to estop the respondents from praying for their reinstatement in the present case. Under the doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment, which is also known as "reclusion of issues" or "collateral estoppel," issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future case between the same parties involving a different cause of action.[51] Applied to the present case, the "former suit" refers to CA-G.R. SP No. 75457 wherein the CA ordered separation pay instead of reinstatement and G.R. No. 162554 wherein this Court denied the petition for review filed by respondents together with other dismissed workers. The "future case" is the present case in which the petitioner is Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company assailing the validity of the CA Decision declaring the dismissal of respondents to be illegal. Reinstatement was not an issue raised by herein petitioner. Respondents cannot now be allowed to raise the same in the petition filed by petitioner, for that would circumvent the finality of judgment as to separation pay insofar as respondents are concerned.