Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 165132 2012-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NELLIE R. APOLONIO BRION, J.
We affirmed and consistently applied this ruling in the cases of Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII,[41] Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing,[42] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[43] Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja,[44] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[45] Office of the Ombudsman v. Lucero,[46] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[47]
	GR No. 180236 2012-01-17	GEMMA P. CABALIT v. COA-REGION VII VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The provisions in R.A. No. 6770 taken together reveal the manifest intent of the lawmakers to bestow on the Office of the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority. These provisions cover the entire gamut of administrative adjudication which entails the authority to, inter alia, receive complaints, conduct investigations, hold hearings in accordance with its rules of procedure, summon witnesses and require the production of documents, place under preventive suspension public officers and employees pending an investigation, determine the appropriate penalty imposable on erring public officers or employees as warranted by the evidence, and, necessarily, impose the said penalty.[58] Thus, it is settled that the Office of the Ombudsman can directly impose administrative sanctions.
	GR No. 167982 2008-08-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN. 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.
	GR No. 166658 2008-04-30	EUSTAQUIO B. CESA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN QUISUMBING, J.
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[32] where the treasury operations assistant of the Bacolod City treasurer's office was suspended for six months without pay for cash shortages due to the machinations and dishonest acts of a paymaster, we ruled that while Section 15(3)[33] of Rep. Act No. 6770 states that the Ombudsman has the power to recommend the suspension of government officials and employees, the same Section 15(3) also states that the Ombudsman in the alternative may "enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21"[34] of Rep. Act No. 6770. The word "or" in Section 15(3) before the phrase "enforce its disciplinary authority as provided in Section 21" grants the Ombudsman this alternative power.[35] Ergo, the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Ombudsman has no power to directly impose administrative sanctions on public officials.
	GR No. 168892 2008-03-24	DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR VISAYAS PRIMO C. MIRO v. CLETO ABUGAN 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]