Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE v. HERMOGENES R. LIWAG

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 196231 2014-01-28	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
Given the scope of its disciplinary authority, the Office of the Ombudsman is a very powerful government constitutional agency that is considered "a notch above other grievance-handling investigative bodies."[39] It has powers, both constitutional and statutory, that are commensurate with its daunting task of enforcing accountability of public officers.[40]
	GR No. 196231 2012-09-04	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Sometime in 2008, a formal charge[5] for Grave Misconduct (robbery, grave threats, robbery extortion and physical injuries) was filed before the Philippine National Police-National Capital Region (PNP-NCR) against Manila Police District Senior Inspector (P/S Insp.) Rolando Mendoza, and four others, namely, Police Inspector Nelson Lagasca, Senior Police Inspector I Nestor David, Police Officer III Wilson Gavino, and Police Officer II Roderick Lopena. A similar charge was filed by the private complainant, Christian M. Kalaw, before the Office of the City Prosecutor, Manila, docketed as I.S. No. 08E-09512.
	GR No. 183678 2010-03-15	RENE VENTENILLA PUSE v. LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
However, where concurrent jurisdiction exists in several tribunals, the body or agency that first takes cognizance of the complaint shall exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of the others. [22] Here, it was the Board of Professional Teachers, before which respondent filed the complaint, that acquired jurisdiction over the case and which had the authority to proceed and decide the case to the exclusion of the DepEd and the CSC.