Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 75 views

    Ombudsman Vs Ibrahim

    Uploaded by

    Edison Flores
    ombudsman vs ibrahim

    Copyright:

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

    Ombudsman Vs Ibrahim

    Uploaded by

    Edison Flores
    75 views3 pages
    ombudsman vs ibrahim

    Original Title

    Ombudsman vs Ibrahim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    ombudsman vs ibrahim

    Copyright:

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

    Ombudsman Vs Ibrahim

    Uploaded by

    Edison Flores
    ombudsman vs ibrahim

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 3

    May 20, 2014

    CLARO V. MARANAN
    Administrator
    Pambansang Pangasiwaan ng Patubig
    National Government Center
    E. Delos Santos Avenue
    Quezon City
    Dear Claro V. Maranan,
    Upon finding merit on the Engr. Liling Lanto Ibrahims Motion for
    Execution, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 28,
    2014 ordered the reinstatement of Engr. Ibrahim to his previous post
    without loss of seniority rights, or to equivalent post should his previous
    post has already been filled up, and with corresponding payment of back
    wages.
    In the same Resolution, the said Court mentioned that the OSG does not
    oppose the execution of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing
    the administrative case against Ibrahim. We abide.
    With the information that Engr. Ibrahim had voluntarily avail of NIAs
    Rationalization Plan - Separation Incentive Package (under E.O. No. 366)
    and was separated from the service even before the implementation of
    the decision of the Ombudsman-Mindanao dismissing him from service,
    we find it contrary to law, fairness and equity should the Agency still be
    liable to pay Engr. Ibrahim of his back wages.
    The availment of the Separation Incentive package of Engr. Ibrahim
    effectively terminated him from service. As such, he cannot benefit
    subsequent to his termination.
    Paying his back wages would

    tantamount to rehiring him again, an act that is prohibited under


    Executive Order No. 366, to with:
    Section 15.
    Prohibition on Rehiring of Personnel
    Retired/Separated from the Service. Government personnel
    who would opt to retire or be separated as a result of
    rationalization efforts shall not be appointed or hired in any
    agency
    of
    the
    Executive
    Branch,
    including
    GOCCs/Government Financial Institutions (GFIs), except in
    educational institutions and hospitals, within a period of five
    (5) years.
    Aequitas sequitur legem. Equity had come not to destroy the law, but to
    fulfill it. Every jot and every tittle of law was to be obeyed, but when all
    this had been done yet something might be needful, something that
    equity would require. Equity respected every world of law, but where law
    was defective, in those cases, equity provides equitable right and
    remedies.
    Receiving back wages in addition to the separation package already
    received would unjustly enrich Engr. Ibrahim at the expense of the
    government. Jurisprudence ruled that when a change in the situation of
    the parties makes the execution inequitable or unjust, the trial court
    may properly refuse to execute the order.
    Pending our Petition for Review on Certiorari, a Motion to Stay Execution
    (or Motion for Reconsideration?) shall be proper.

    Very truly yours,

    FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
    Solicitor General

    MA. ANTONIA EDITA C. DIZON

    Assistant Solicitor General

    MARIA HAZEL P. VALDEZ ACANTILADO


    Senior State Solicitor

    You might also like