Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDMUNDO JOSE T. BUENCAMINO v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 166495 2011-02-16	ROQUE C. FACURA v. CA MENDOZA, J.
The Ombudsman's decision imposing the penalty of suspension for one year is immediately executory pending appeal.[35] It cannot be stayed by the mere filing of an appeal to the CA. This rule is similar to that provided under Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
	GR No. 166495 2011-02-16	ROQUE C. FACURA v. CA MENDOZA, J.
Following the ruling in the above cited case, this Court, in Buencamino v. Court of Appeals,[37] upheld the resolution of the CA denying Buencamino's application for preliminary injunction against the immediate implementation of the suspension order against him. The Court stated therein that the CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's application for injunctive relief because Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman was amended by Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 15, 2003.
	GR No. 175573 2010-10-05	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO CORONA, J.
The Ombudsman's decision imposing the penalty of suspension for one year is immediately executory pending appeal.[4] It cannot be stayed by the mere filing of an appeal to the CA. This rule is similar to that provided under Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
	GR No. 159395 2008-05-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
More recently, in the 2007 case of Buencamino v. Court of Appeals,[32] the primary issue was whether the decision of the Ombudsman suspending petitioner therein from office for six months without pay was immediately executory even pending appeal in the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the pertinent ruling in Lapid v. Court of Appeals has already been superseded by the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH, which clearly held that decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal.
	GR No. 175451 2007-09-28	ROSARIO L. DADULO v. VS.THE CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws cannot be considered violative of any personal rights because no vested right may attach to nor arise therefrom.[8] Following the ruling in the above cited case, this Court, in Buencamino v. Court of Appeals,[9] upheld the resolution of the Court of Appeals denying Buencamino's application for preliminary injunction against the immediate implementation of the suspension order against him. The Court stated therein that considering that an appeal under Administrative Order No. 17, the amendatory rule, shall not stop the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman from being executory, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's application for injunctive relief.