Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROSARIO N. LOPEZ v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR Nos. 170500 & 170510-11 2011-06-01	MARCELO G. GANADEN v. CA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioners rely heavily on the cases of Lopez v. Court of Appeals[12] and Lapid v. Court of Appeals[13] where the Court held, in essence, that a decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases is stayed as a matter of right during the pendency of an appeal. The Lapid and Lopez cases, however, were decided in 2000 and 2002 respectively. Since then, there have been amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman. At present, Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, dated September 15, 2003, provides: SECTION 7. Finality and Execution of Decision.--Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where 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, executory and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review under the requirements and conditions set forth in Rule 43 of the Rules of Court, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the written Notice of the Decision or Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration.
	GR No. 160596 2009-03-20	REPUBLIC v. IGNACIO BAJAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The Court had occasion to resolve the same issue in Herrera v. Bohol.[26] In said case, the Ombudsman found therein petitioner Herrera guilty of simple misconduct and imposed upon him the penalty of suspension for one month without pay. Herrera filed an appeal with the CA, but the same was dismissed on the ground "that the questioned decision of the Ombudsman is unappealable x x x." Citing Lopez v. Court of Appeals,[27] the Court affirmed the decision of the CA, thus:x x x [T]he Court, again citing Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6770, Sec. 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman and Lapid v. Court of Appeals, reiterated that decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing the penalty of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary shall be final and unappealable. The penalty imposed upon herein petitioner being suspension for one month without pay, we hold the same final and unappealable, as correctly ruled by the Court of Appeals. (Emphasis added)
	GR NO. 175895 2007-04-12	EDMUNDO JOSE T. BUENCAMINO v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Hence, the instant petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Petitioner alleged therein that in denying his application for a preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion; that pursuant to Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07,[2] the Decision of the Office of the Ombudsman suspending him from office is not immediately executory; and that in enforcing its Decision suspending him from the service during the pendency of his appeal, the Office of the Ombudsman violated Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989) and the rulings of this Court in Lapid v. Court of Appeals;[3] Lopez v. Court of Appeals,[4] and Ombudsman v. Laja.[5]
	GR NO. 149102 2007-02-15	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOHNNY ALANO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In the instant case, petitioner, in its Resolution dated August 14, 1998, exonerated respondent of the administrative charge. It is implicit in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 that a decision absolving or exonerating respondent of the charge is final and unappealable,[6] meaning, immediately executory.[7] In Alba v. Nitorreda,[8] we upheld the validity of the provisions of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770 and Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 providing for the immediate finality and non-appealability of the decisions, orders, resolutions, or directives of the Ombudsman in certain cases and declaring that such provisions do not infringe on the due process clause, for the right of appeal is not a natural right, nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner provided by law.[9]
	GR NO. 163089 2006-12-06	REPUBLIC v. JESUS FRANCISCO 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.