Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 50 views

    Ombudsman Vs Madriaga

    Uploaded by

    Jenna Giron
    The Office of the Ombudsman found respondents guilty of violating RA 6713 and imposed penalties. Another officer from the Office increased the penalties to 6 months suspension and found respondents guilty of another violation. After their motion for reconsideration was denied, respondents filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which ruled the penalties were only recommendatory. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman has full disciplinary authority over public officials and employees, including the power to enforce its judgements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ombudsman Vs Madriaga

    Uploaded by

    Jenna Giron
    50 views1 page
    The Office of the Ombudsman found respondents guilty of violating RA 6713 and imposed penalties. Another officer from the Office increased the penalties to 6 months suspension and found respondents guilty of another violation. After their motion for reconsideration was denied, respondents filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which ruled the penalties were only recommendatory. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman has full disciplinary authority over public officials and employees, including the power to enforce its judgements.

    Original Description:

    digest of Ombudsman vs Madriaga

    Original Title

    Ombudsman vs Madriaga

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Office of the Ombudsman found respondents guilty of violating RA 6713 and imposed penalties. Another officer from the Office increased the penalties to 6 months suspension and found respondents guilty of another violation. After their motion for reconsideration was denied, respondents filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which ruled the penalties were only recommendatory. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman has full disciplinary authority over public officials and employees, including the power to enforce its judgements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    50 views1 page

    Ombudsman Vs Madriaga

    Uploaded by

    Jenna Giron
    The Office of the Ombudsman found respondents guilty of violating RA 6713 and imposed penalties. Another officer from the Office increased the penalties to 6 months suspension and found respondents guilty of another violation. After their motion for reconsideration was denied, respondents filed a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which ruled the penalties were only recommendatory. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman has full disciplinary authority over public officials and employees, including the power to enforce its judgements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    OMBUDSMAN vs MADRIAGA (2006)

    Third Division | Carpio Morales, J.


    Office of the Special Prosecutor
    A letter complaint was filed before the Office of Ombudsman against respondents in violation of RA
    6713. The Graft Investigation Officer found them guilty and imposed the proper penalty. However,
    another GIO set aside the decision and found them guilty also of another violation and increased their
    penalty to 6 months of suspension. Respondents then filed a motion for reconsideration, but was
    denied. They then filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which it granted and
    declared that the penalty was merely recommendatory to the Department of Education. Thus, the
    petition before the Supreme Court.
    On the issue on whether or not the Ombudsman has full disciplinary authority over public officials and
    employees including the power to enforce its duly issued judgements, the Court held in the
    affirmative. By the Constitutional provision, the phrase "ensure compliance therewith" gives such
    power.

    You might also like