Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 197307 2014-02-26	FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VELASCO JR., J.
month salary are not immediately executory and can be stayed by an appeal timely filed. The pertinent ruling in Lapid has, however, been superseded.[39] On August 17, 2000, AO 14-A was issued amending Sec. 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the OMB. The rule, as thus amended, pertinently reads: Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. Where x x x the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the
	GR No. 172334 2013-06-05	DR. ZENAIDA P. PIA v. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO REYES, J.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman is immediately executory even pending appeal. The issue was fully explained by the Court in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[30] viz:In Lapid v. Court of Appeals, the Court anchored its ruling mainly on Section 27 of RA 6770, as supported by Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. The pertinent provisions read:
	GR Nos. 170500 & 170510-11 2011-06-01	MARCELO G. GANADEN v. CA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
The provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman is clear that an appeal by a public official from a decision meted out by the Ombudsman shall not stop the decision from being executory. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Macabulos,[16] we held that decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal in the CA. As explained by this Court in the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH,[17] this provision in the rules of the Ombudsman is similar to that provided under Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. (Emphasis supplied.)
	GR No. 172224 2011-01-26	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
The CA is incorrect. The provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman is clear that an appeal by a public official from a decision meted out by the Ombudsman shall not stop the decision from being executory. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Macabulos,[19] we held that decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal in the CA. As explained by this Court in the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH,[20] this provision in the rules of the Ombudsman is similar to that provided under Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[21]
	GR No. 160596 2009-03-20	REPUBLIC v. IGNACIO BAJAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The claim of respondent -- that the present petition is barred by the Ombudsman prior petition (G.R. No. 160501), which was dismissed -- is not plausible. Suffice it to state that the Court gave due course to the present petition, for it raises highly meritorious arguments, dealing with the undue diminution of the constitutionally mandated investigatory power of the Ombudsman, against which the Ombudsman must be accorded every opportunity to defend itself;[19] and that the assailed decision of the CA is blatantly erroneous.[20]
	GR No. 167982 2008-08-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As the Court recently held in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[19] Section 20 of R.A. No. 6770 has been clarified by Administrative Order No. 17,[20] which amended Administrative Order No. 07, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. Section 4, Rule III[21] of the amended Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman reads:Section 4. Evaluation. - Upon receipt of the complaint, the same shall be evaluated to determine whether the same may be: