Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO

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.
the basic complaint on August 20, 2003[31] when the ruling in Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman[32] had still controlling sway. To petitioners, Tapiador enunciated the dictum that the Ombudsman's disciplinary power is only to recommend, the power to suspend and dismiss erring personnel being vested in the head of the office concerned. As a corollary point, petitioners also advance the argument that the legal situation changed only when Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals[33] and Ombudsman v. Samaniego[34] were decided in June 2006 and September 2008, respectively. We are not impressed.
	GR No. 196231 2014-01-28	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
With the advent of the 1987 Constitution, a new Office of the Ombudsman was created by constitutional fiat. Unlike in the 1973 Constitution, its independence was expressly and constitutionally guaranteed. Its objectives are to enforce the state policy in Section 27, Article II[35] and the standard of accountability in public service under Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. These provisions read: Section 27. The State shall maintain honesty and integrity in the public service and take positive and effective measures against graft and corruption.
	GR No. 189801 2013-10-23	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Nevertheless, the CA granted Gabuya's application for the issuance of a writ preliminary injunction, temporarily enjoining the immediate implementation of her dismissal from service. It cited as basis the Court's Decision dated September 11, 2008 in G.R. No. 175573, entitled Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego[20] (2008 Samaniego ruling), where it was held that the mere filing of an appeal is sufficient to stay the execution of the Ombudsman's adverse decision involving disciplinary cases.[21]
	GR No. 172206 2013-07-03	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ PERALTA, J.
The CA should have allowed the Office of the Ombudsman to intervene in the appeal pending with the lower court. The wisdom of this course of action has been exhaustively explained in Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego.[6] In said case, the CA also issued a Resolution denying the Office of the Ombudsman's motion to intervene. In resolving the issue of whether the Office of the Ombudsman has legal interest to intervene in the appeal of its Decision, the Court expounded, thus: x x x the Ombudsman is in a league of its own. It is different from other investigatory and prosecutory agencies of the government because the people under its jurisdiction are public officials who, through pressure and influence, can quash, delay or dismiss investigations directed against them. Its function is critical because public interest (in the accountability of public officers and employees) is at stake.
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
The OSG attacks the legal personality of the petitioners-legislators to file their petition for failure to demonstrate their personal stake in the outcome of the case. It argues that the petitioners have not shown that they have sustained or are in danger of sustaining any personal injury attributable to the creation of the PTC. Not claiming to be the subject of the commission's investigations, petitioners will not sustain injury in its creation or as a result of its proceedings.[20]
	GR No. 185954 2010-02-16	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MAXIMO D. SISON VELASCO JR., J.
In support of its position, petitioner cites Office of the Ombudsman v. Samaniego.[22] That case, however, is not applicable here, since the Office of the Ombudsman filed the motion for intervention during the pendency of the proceedings before the CA.