Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 919 views

    Lopez v. CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Bernie Cabang Pringase
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to grant a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the execution of the suspension of a respondent in an administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman. While the Ombudsman found the respondent guilty of one charge and imposed a 6-month suspension, the penalty was appealable. As such, the execution of the suspension should be stayed pending appeal as a matter of right. This did not violate the equal protection clause.

    Copyright:

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

    Lopez v. CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Bernie Cabang Pringase
    919 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to grant a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the execution of the suspension of a respondent in an administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman. While the Ombudsman found the respondent guilty of one charge and imposed a 6-month suspension, the penalty was appealable. As such, the execution of the suspension should be stayed pending appeal as a matter of right. This did not violate the equal protection clause.

    Original Description:

    .

    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 Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to grant a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the execution of the suspension of a respondent in an administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman. While the Ombudsman found the respondent guilty of one charge and imposed a 6-month suspension, the penalty was appealable. As such, the execution of the suspension should be stayed pending appeal as a matter of right. This did not violate the equal protection clause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    919 views3 pages

    Lopez v. CA Digest

    Uploaded by

    Bernie Cabang Pringase
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals to grant a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against the execution of the suspension of a respondent in an administrative case before the Office of the Ombudsman. While the Ombudsman found the respondent guilty of one charge and imposed a 6-month suspension, the penalty was appealable. As such, the execution of the suspension should be stayed pending appeal as a matter of right. This did not violate the equal protection clause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Title: Lopez vs. CA G.R. No.

    144573, September 24, 2002

    Facts:

    Private respondent Atty. Romeo A. Liggayu, Manager of the Legal Department


    andResident Ombudsman of the PCSO was administratively charged before the
    Office of theOmbudsman with: 1) Violation of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman
    Act of 1989), forissuing a subpoena without authority purportedly in relation to
    OMB-0-99-0571 entitled,
    FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU versus MANUEL MORATO, et al.
    ; and 2)complicity in the anomalous contracts entered into by PCSO and Golden
    Lion Films forthe production of 1,092 episodes of Ang Pangarap Kong Jackpot,
    subject matter of OMB-0-99-0571 and 0572 entitled,
    FFIB vs. MANUEL MORATO, et al.
    and OMB-ADM-0-99-0254 entitled,
    FFIB vs. ISRAEL G. ESTRELLA, et al.
    The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the charge against him with regards
    theanomalous contracts however he was found guilty from issuing a subpoena
    withoutauthority. The penalty of 6 months suspension without pay is imposed upon
    him by theoffice. His motion for reconsideration was denied and so he file for a
    petition for review before the Court of Appeals and prayed for the issuance of a
    temporary restrainingorder/and or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the
    execution of the decision of theOffice of the Ombudsman.On March 8, 2000,
    petitioners implemented the suspension of private respondent.However on March
    16, 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Orderenjoining the
    Office of the Ombudsman from implementing the suspension order againstprivate
    respondent. Thereafter private respondent filed an amended petition impleadingthe
    herein petitioners. On May 18, 2000, a resolution was issued granting
    privaterespondents prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
    Injunctionagainst the execution of private respondents suspension.In the same
    resolution,petitioners were asked to explain why they should not be cited in
    contempt of court forfailing to comply with the Temporary Restraining Order dated
    March 16, 2000.

    You're Reading a Free Preview

    Pages 2 to 16 are not shown in this preview.


    BUY THE FULL VERSION

    Petitioners manifested through an explanation that they could not have complied
    with or implemented the TRO since they were not yet parties to the case at the time
    of itsissuance and that the same was rendered moot and academic by petitioners
    suspensionon March 8, 2000. Herein private respondent is reinstated to his position
    pending theappeal as ordered by the CA.In the present recourse, petitioners
    contend that the Court of Appeals gravely abusedits discretion in enjoining the
    execution of petitioners suspension pending appeal. Thepetitioners also averred
    that the stay of execution pending appeal from the order, directiveor decision of the
    Office of the Ombudsman violates the equal protection clause for beingunfair to
    government employees charged under the Civil Service Law, where the decisionsin
    disciplinary cases are immediately executory.Issue: Whether or not the decision of
    CA violates the equal protection clause.Ruling:No, the CA did not violate the equal
    protection clause. Rule III Section 7 of theProvisionary Rules of the Office of the
    Ombudsman states that-Where the respondent isabsolved of the charge and in case
    of conviction where the penalty imposed is publiccensure or reprimand, suspension
    of not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent toone month salary, the
    decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, thedecision shall
    become final after the expiration of ten (10) days from receipt thereof by
    therespondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, shall
    have beenfiled by him as prescribed in Section 27 of R.A. 6770. This means that
    unless the penalty of censure or reprimand or suspension imposed is of not more
    than one month or a fine notequivalent to one month salary it shall not be final or
    executory. The law gives therespondent the right to appeal. In these cases, the
    order, directive or decision becomesfinal and executory only after the lapse of the
    period to appeal if no appeal is perfected, orafter the denial of the appeal from the
    said order, directive or decision.The penalty imposed on private respondent for
    Conduct Prejudicial To The Best Interest of The Service

    was six (6) months and one (1) day suspension without pay. Considering that
    privaterespondent appealed from the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, the
    stay of execution of the penalty of suspension should therefore issue as a matter of
    right. Thus,there is no violation of the equal protection clause. The case is dismissed
    and the CA'sresolution is hereby affirmed.Note: the legal maxim
    expressio

    unius est exclusio alterius


    is applied in this case with regards to the application of Sec 27. The express
    mention of the things includedexcludes those that are not included. The clear
    import of these statements taken togetheris that all other decisions of the Office of
    the Ombudsman which impose penalties that arenot enumerated in the said section
    27 are not final, unappealable and immediately executory. Courts may not, in the
    guise of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statuteand include therein situations
    not provided or intended by the lawmakers.Title: Phil.REC vs. the Secretary,
    DILGG.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003Facts:Petitioner Philippine Rural Electric
    Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA) is anassociation of 119 electric
    cooperatives throughout the country filed a class suit in theirown behalf and in
    behalf of other electric cooperatives organized and existing under P.D.No. 269. P.D.
    No. 269 aims to promote, encourage and assist all public service entitiesengaged
    in supplying electric service, particularly electric cooperatives by giving every
    tenable support and assistance to the electric cooperatives coming within the
    purview of the law. Accordingly, Section 39 of P.D. No. 269 provides for the following
    tax incentives toelectric cooperatives:SECTION 39.Assistance to Cooperatives;
    Exemption from Taxes, Imposts, Duties,Fees; Assistance from the National Power
    Corporation. Pursuant to the nationalpolicy declared in Section 2, the Congress
    hereby finds and declares that thefollowing assistance to cooperative is necessary
    and appropriate:(a)Provided that it operates in conformity with the purposes and
    provisions of thisDecree, cooperatives (1) shall be permanently exempt from paying
    income taxes,and (2) for a period ending on December 31 of the thirtieth full
    calendar year after
    Activity (2)
    FILTERSAdd to collection
    1 hundred reads
    Ruth Francis Dy Kam liked this
    Similar to Case Digest
    Tan vs. Bausch & Lomb

    You might also like