This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-12-10 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court shall first delve on the procedural issues of the case. The OMB contends that the CA should have dismissed Rigor's Petition for Certiorari for being an improper remedy. Appeals from decisions in administrative disciplinary cases of the OMB should be taken to the CA via a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Rule 43 prescribes the manner of appeal from quasi-judicial agencies, such as the OMB, and was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies. Rigor, in support of his petition for certiorari, argues that there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy available to him. But it is settled that certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. The remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[12] And even if the special civil action of certiorari were to be allowed, Rigor still failed to show that the OMB committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to the intervention of the DPWH. | |||||
|
2008-08-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The power of the Ombudsman to directly impose administrative sanctions has been repeatedly reiterated in the subsequent cases of Barillo v. Gervasio,[26] Office of the Ombudsman v. Madriaga,[27] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[28] Balbastro v. Junio,[29] Commission on Audit, Regional Office No. 13, Butuan City v. Hinampas,[30] Office of the Ombudsman v. Santiago,[31] Office of the Ombudsman v. Lisondra,[32] and most recently in Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas v. Abugan[33] and continues to be the controlling doctrine. | |||||
|
2008-06-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| However, during the ocular inspection the Technical Audit Specialist of the COA noted that although there were traces of repair works found in the Mathematics Building; Social Studies Building and school fences, the extent of repairs could not be determined or confirmed because of the absence of documents in support thereof such as: approved job order; estimate of works; program of works and bill of materials. The location of the projects could not also be confirmed because of the absence of sketch plans detailing the location of the projects, as there were several waiting sheds; toilets and fences; and two (2) English Buildings. Thus, prompting the COA to conclude that these itemized projects were not implemented at all, which respondent Corazon Balbastro did not dispute with clear and convincing evidence. And all told, this Office is convinced that most, if not all, of these projects were non-existing.[12] (Underscoring supplied) In fine, petitioner's arguments only render more pronounced the correctness of the Ombudsman's decision finding her guilty on the basis of the audit report which constitutes substantial evidence. As Balbastro v. Junio[13] held, an administrative case also involving herein petitioner: As to the findings of the Ombudsman, it is settled that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. Factual findings of administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal. And a finding of guilt in an administrative case would also have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. (Underscoring supplied) WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. | |||||
|
2008-03-24 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The power of the Office of the Ombudsman to directly impose administrative sanctions was again affirmed in the recent cases of Barillo v. Gervasio,[21] Office of the Ombudsman v. CA[22] and Balbastro v. Junio.[23] | |||||