This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-04-18 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| In preventively suspending a public officer or employee pending investigation, the law does not require that all the four requirements should concur. What is required is merely a showing that the evidence of guilt is strong; and that any of the three (to wit: (a) the charge involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charge warrants removal from the service; or (c) the respondent's continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him), is present. The immediate issuance of a preventive suspension order is required to prevent the subject of the suspension from committing further irregularities. The same is in consonance with Section 15 of R.A. No. 6770 which exhorts the Ombudsman to give priority to complaints filed against high ranking government officials and/or those occupying supervisory positions, complaints involving grave offenses as well as complaints involving large sums of money and/or properties.[36] | |||||
|
2007-07-12 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The word "or" is a disjunctive term signifying disassociation and independence of one thing from each of the other things enumerated.[20] | |||||