This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-03-20 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| have long been resolved by the Court in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Armilla,[22] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Santos,[23] and Herrera v. Bohol.[24] | |||||
|
2006-12-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| From the foregoing provisions, it was held in Lapid v. Court of Appeals[28] that orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing the penalty of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent to one month salary shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the aggrieved party is given the right to appeal within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision; thus, the judgment will become final after the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal, if no appeal is perfected or, an appeal therefrom having been taken.[29] In the instant case, since the penalty imposed upon respondents was "one month suspension without pay" only, as a matter of law, the decision of the Ombudsman is final and unappealable. As held in Herrera v. Bohol,[30] where petitioner therein was likewise found guilty of simple misconduct and suspended for one (1) month without pay, the decision of the Ombudsman can no longer be rectified, much less, reversed. | |||||
|
2006-03-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence[22] and are accorded due respect and weight especially when they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[23] It is only when there is grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may aptly be made.[24] | |||||