This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-03-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Thus, the CA erred when it reviewed on appeal the factual basis of the Ombudsman decision despite its being final and unappealable under Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6770. As we held in Republic v. Francisco,[28] considering that a decision of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of suspension for not more than one month is final and unappealable, "it follows that the CA ha[s] no appellate jurisdiction to review, rectify or reverse the same." This is not to say that decisions of the Ombudsman cannot be questioned - such decisions are still subject to the test of arbitrariness or grave abuse of discretion through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, as earlier discussed, the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in imposing on respondent the penalty of suspension without pay for not more than one month, the same being within its ample authority to impose under the Constitution and R.A. No. 6770. | |||||
|
2007-07-10 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Our ruling in the case of Fabian vs. Desierto invalidated Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 and any other provision of law implementing the aforesaid Act only insofar as they provide for appeals in administrative disciplinary cases from the Office of the Ombudsman to the Supreme Court. The only provision affected by the Fabian ruling is the designation of the Court of Appeals as the proper forum and of Rule 43 of the Rules of Court as the proper mode of appeal. All other matters included in said section 27, including the finality or non-finality of decisions, are not affected and still stand. Also, in Republic v. Francisco,[18] it was stressed:We agree with petitioner's contention that the decision of the Ombudsman finding respondents guilty of simple misconduct and ordering their suspension for one (1) month without pay is final and unappealable as provided in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Administrative Order No. 07, Section 7, Rule III of the Office of the Ombudsman implementing Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770. x x x. | |||||
|
2007-07-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In sum, petitioner, by issuing its Orders dated March 17 and August 12, 1999 modifying its final and immediately executory Resolution of August 14, 1998 exonerating respondent, committed a reversible error. With more reason, exoneration cannot be appealed by a petition for review under Rule 43 with the CA.[29] | |||||