Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 151800 2009-11-05	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. HEIRS OF MARGARITA VDA. DE VENTURA PERALTA, J.
The crux of the matter is whether the CA has jurisdiction over decisions and orders of the Ombudsman in criminal cases. This issue has been directly addressed in Kuizon v. Desierto[9] and reiterated in the more recent Golangco v. Fung,[10] wherein the Court declared, thus: The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.
	GR No. 167763 2008-03-14	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. JESSIE V. RABANG AZCUNA, J.
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. [6]