Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMEO R. SALALIMA v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR Nos. 217126-27 2015-11-10	CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On July 22, 2014, a complaint/affidavit[10] was filed by Atty. Renato L. Bondal and Nicolas "Ching" Enciso VI before the Office of the Ombudsman against Binay, Jr. and other public officers and employees of the City Government of Makati (Binay, Jr., et al), accusing them of Plunder[11] and violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019,[12] otherwise known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," in connection with the five (5) phases of the procurement and construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building (Makati Parking Building).[13]
	GR Nos. 217126-27 2015-11-10	CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
On September 9, 2014, the Ombudsman constituted a Special Panel of Investigators[14] to conduct a fact-finding investigation, submit an investigation report, and file the necessary complaint, if warranted (1st Special Panel).[15] Pursuant to the Ombudsman's directive, on March 5, 2015, the 1st Special Panel filed a complaint[16] (OMB Complaint) against Binay, Jr., et al, charging them with six (6) administrative cases[17] for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and six (6) criminal cases[18] for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, Malversation of Public Funds, and Falsification of Public Documents (OMB Cases).[19]
	GR No. 199752 2015-02-17	LUCENA D. DEMAALA v. COA LEONEN, J.
The foregoing factual setting shows a wanton disregard of law on the part of the respondents tantamount to abuse of authority. Moreover, the illegal disbursements made can qualify as technical malversation.[60]
	GR No. 168766 2008-05-22	CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. HENRY A. SOJOR REYES, R.T., J.
Lastly, We do not agree with respondent's contention that his appointment to the position of president of NORSU, despite the pending administrative cases against him, served as a condonation by the BOR of the alleged acts imputed to him. The doctrine this Court laid down in Salalima v. Guingona, Jr.[47] and Aguinaldo v. Santos[48] are inapplicable to the present circumstances. Respondents in the mentioned cases are elective officials, unlike respondent here who is an appointed official. Indeed, election expresses the sovereign will of the people.[49] Under the principle of vox populi est suprema lex, the re-election of a public official may, indeed, supersede a pending administrative case. The same cannot be said of a re-appointment to a non-career position. There is no sovereign will of the people to speak of when the BOR re-appointed respondent Sojor to the post of university president.
	GR NO. 147640 2006-10-16	JOWETT K. GOLANGCO v. ATTY. JONE B. FUNG CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Oppression has been defined as "an act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority."[4]
	GR NO. 154027 2005-10-24	SPS. RAMON AND ROSITA TAN v. GORGONIA BANTEGUI PANGANIBAN, J.
A gross inadequacy in the price is of no moment either. It is true that the lower the price, the easier it will be for the owner to effect redemption;[19] but the fact remains that without the mandatory notices, the registered owner will never be given the opportunity to redeem the property, despite the lapse of one year from the date the sale is registered.[20]
	AM RTJ-04-1859 2004-07-13	ENGRACIO SIMYUNN DIALO v. MARIANO JOAQUIN S. MACIAS CARPIO MORALES, J.
By respondent's act of requesting for complainant's and his companion's warrantless arrest, he violated complainant's constitutional right, an act which partakes of the nature of oppression, defined as an "act of cruelty, severity, unlawful exaction, domination or excessive use of authority."[12]