Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ULDARICO P. ANDUTAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AM No. MTJ-10-1760 2015-11-16	OCA v. RETIRED JUDGE FILEMON A. TANDINCO BRION, J.
At the time Judge Tandinco's court was audited on December 6, 7, and 8, 2009, Judge Lampasa was no longer with the judiciary. On December 1, 2009, she filed a certificate of candidacy as City Mayor of Calbayog City, hence, she was automatically deemed resigned from the service and the Court was already divested of jurisdiction to institute an administrative case against her.[18]
	GR No. 204869 2014-03-11	TECHNICAL EDUCATION v. COA CARPIO, J.
D. FINALLY, THE [COA] GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CONCERNED TESDA OFFICIALS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS DE FACTO OFFICERS IN GOOD FAITH AND IN DISREGARDING THE RELEVANT RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CA[N]TILLO VS. ARRIETA.[12]
	GR No. 176702 2013-11-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MARCELINO A. DECHAVEZ BRION, J.
Recently, we emphasized that in a case that a public official's cessation from service does not render moot an administrative case that was filed prior to the official's resignation. In the 2011 case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Andutan, Jr.,[21] we reiterated the doctrine and laid down the line of cases supporting this principle when we ruled: To recall, we have held in the past that a public official's resignation does not render moot an administrative case that was filed prior to the official's resignation. In Pagano v. Nazarro, Jr., we held that:
	AM No. RTJ-10-2235 2013-03-11	OCA v. JESUS L. GRAGEDA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Andutan, Jr., the Court ruled that while the Ombudsman is not precluded from conducting an investigation against the errant employee, it can no longer institute an administrative case against Andutan who had already resigned,[19] more so since his resignation or severance of employment from the service was not availed of to prevent the continuation of the pending administrative case or to pre-empt the imminent filing of one.[20] The Court also dismissed an administrative case filed against a retired court stenographer for having been initiated over a month after her retirement from the service.[21] Moreover, in Re: Missing Exhibits and Court Properties in Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo City, Davao del Norte,[22] the Court absolved herein respondent, Judge Grageda, from any administrative liability since the complaint against him was filed after his retirement from the judiciary.
	AM No. 10-2-41-RTC 2013-02-27	RE: MISSING EXHIBITS CARPIO, J.
In the present case, Judge Grageda's compulsory retirement divested the OCA of its right to institute a new administrative case against him after his compulsory retirement. The Court can no longer acquire administrative jurisdiction over Judge Grageda by filing a new administrative case against him after he has ceased to be a public official. The remedy, if necessary, is to file the appropriate civil or criminal case against Judge Grageda for the alleged transgression. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Andutan, Jr.,[17] the Court held that: Although the Ombudsman is not precluded by Section 20(5) of R.A. 6770 from conducting the investigation, the Ombudsman can no longer institute an administrative case against Andutan because the latter was not a public servant at the time the case was filed.
	GR No. 192334 2012-06-13	CONRADO CASING v. OMBUDSMAN BRION, J.
A plain reading of these two provisions clearly shows that they do not apply to a criminal case but only to an administrative case. Their invocation in the present case is therefore misplaced. Even assuming, however, that these provisions apply to the criminal proceedings below, the obviously permissive wording of the law simply confers on the Ombudsman the discretion whether to conduct an investigation of a complaint even if it was filed more than one year from the date of the act or omission complained of.[34] The claim for an outright dismissal simply has no leg to stand on.
	GR No. 175263 2012-03-14	MANUEL H. NIETO v. SECURITIES PEREZ, J.
A case becomes moot and academic when there is no more actual controversy between the parties or no useful purpose can be served in passing upon the merits of the case.[5] In such cases, there is no actual substantial relief to which petitioner would be entitled to and which would be negated by the dismissal of the petition.[6]
	AM No. P-10-2836 2011-09-28	OCA v. JESUS VINCENT M. CARBON III BRION, J.
Thus viewed, the respondent's flawed character and unfitness for a position in the Judiciary stand out, aggravated by his shallow scheme to escape liability by dropping out of sight to render him out of the reach of our processes. As we held in the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Uldarico P. Andutan, Jr.,[14] separation from the service renders a former employee out of the reach of the government's administrative processes with respect to the former employment, but this claim does not hold true if the separation from the service was in contemplation of and to escape administrative liability from an offense that took place and was investigated while the employee was still in the service.[15]