This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-25 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The issue of whether or not the Ombudsman possesses the requisite legal interest to intervene in the proceedings where its decision is at risk of being inappropriately impaired has been laid to rest in Ombudsman v. De Chavez.[17] In the said case, the Court conclusively ruled that even if the Ombudsman was not impleaded as a party in the proceedings, part of its broad powers include defending its decisions before the CA. And pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, [18] the Ombudsman may validly intervene in the said proceedings as its legal interest on the matter is beyond cavil. The Court elucidated, 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. | |||||
|
2014-11-26 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has, on several occasions, held that a petition for review on certiorari is not the proper remedy for interlocutory orders. A resolution which does not completely dispose of the case on the merits is merely an interlocutory order and, in accordance with Section 1, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, no appeal may be taken therefrom. [24] | |||||
|
2014-07-30 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| AIC admitted that it had ample time to file a motion for correction of the Final Award but claimed to have purposely sat on its right to seek correction supposedly as a strategic move against TRANSCO[34] and, instead, filed with the CIAC Arbitral Tribunal on June 13, 2007 a "Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution for the Total Amount of P18,967,318.49 as Embodied in the Final Award."[35] The Arbitral Tribunal eventually denied AIC's aforesaid motion for execution because, despite its merit, the Arbitral Tribunal could not disregard the time-limitation under the CIAC Rules.[36] Clearly, having failed to move for the correction of the Final Award and, thereafter, having opted to file instead a motion for execution of the arbitral tribunal's unopposed and uncorrected Final Award, AIC cannot now question against the correctness of the CIAC's disposition. Notably, while there is jurisprudential authority stating that "[a] clerical error in the judgment appealed from may be corrected by the appellate court,"[37] the application of that rule cannot be made in this case considering that the CIAC Rules provides for a specific procedure to deal with particular errors involving "[a]n evident miscalculation of figures, a typographical or arithmetical error." Indeed, the rule is well entrenched: Specialis derogat generali. When two rules apply to a particular case, that which was specially designed for the said case must prevail over the other.[38] | |||||