Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DRA. BRIGIDA S. BUENASEDA v. SECRETARY JUAN FLAVIER

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 175573 2008-09-11	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO CORONA, J.
The Ombudsman is expected to be an "activist watchman," not merely a passive onlooker.[18] A statute granting powers to an agency created by the Constitution â€• such as RA 6770 â€• should be liberally construed to advance the objectives for which it was created.[19] In Buenaseda v. Flavier,[20] we held that any interpretation of RA 6770 that hampers the work of the Ombudsman should be avoided.
	GR No. 175573 2008-09-11	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO CORONA, J.
The Ombudsman is expected to be an "activist watchman," not merely a passive onlooker.[18] A statute granting powers to an agency created by the Constitution â€• such as RA 6770 â€• should be liberally construed to advance the objectives for which it was created.[19] In Buenaseda v. Flavier,[20] we held that any interpretation of RA 6770 that hampers the work of the Ombudsman should be avoided.
	GR No. 179261 2008-04-18	OMBUDSMAN v. BEATRIZ S. PELIÑO YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Ultimately, the Ombudsman is given the discretion to decide when the evidence of guilt is strong. This fact is bolstered by § 24 of R.A. No. 6770, which expressly left such determination of guilt to the judgment of the Ombudsman on the basis of the administrative complaint.[57]
	GR No. 180700 2008-03-04	VILLASEÑOR AND MESA v. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL. REYES, R.T., J.
We cannot agree. Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 on preventive suspension is not a penal provision. It is procedural in nature. Hence, the strict construction rule finds no application. The Court expounded on this point in Buenaseda v. Flavier:[34]
	GR NO. 166062 2006-09-26	SALVADOR M. PEREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Indeed, a statute granting powers to an agency created by the Constitution should be liberally construed for the advancement of the purposes and objectives for which it was created.[47] Yet, the Ombudsman would be severely hampered from exercising his power of control if we are to allow the Special Prosecutor to authorize the filing of informations in the first instance. This is because while the Ombudsman has full discretion to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in the Sandiganbayan, once the case has been filed with said court, it is the Sandiganbayan, and no longer the Ombudsman, which has full control of the case so much so that the informations may not be dismissed, without the approval of the said court.[48]
	AC. NO. 6501 (CBD CASE NOS. 03-1076 2006-08-31	ATTY. LEON L. ASA v. ATTY. PABLITO M. CASTILLO CARPIO MORALES, J.
That a member of the bar is enjoined to observe honorable, candid and courteous dealing with other lawyers[31] and employ respectful and restrained language is in keeping with the dignity of the legal profession.[32] It is through a scrupulous preference for respectful language that a lawyer best demonstrates his observance or respect due to the courts and judicial officers.[33]