Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ROMEO C. NAMUHE v. OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 185115 2015-02-18	NORTHERN MINDANAO POWER CORPORATION v. CIR SERENO, C.J.
To start with, this Court finds it appropriate to first determine the timeliness of petitioner's judicial claim in order to determine whether the tax court properly acquired jurisdiction, although the matter was never raised as an issue by the parties. Well-settled is the rule that the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may, at any time, be raised by the parties or considered by the Court motu proprio.[10] Therefore, the jurisdiction of the CTA over petitioner's appeal may still be considered and determined by this Court.
	GR No. 184266 2013-11-11	APPLIED FOOD INGREDIENTS COMPANY v. CIR SERENO, C.J.
Well-settled is the rule that the issue of jurisdiction over the subject matter may, at any time, be raised by the parties or considered by the Court motu proprio.[11] Therefore, the jurisdiction of the CTA over petitioner's appeal may still be considered and determined by this Court.
	GR No. 175787 2009-02-04	PHILLIPS SEAFOOD CORPORATION v. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS TINGA, J.
In relation to Article 82, E.O. No. 226, Section 1 of Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure expressly includes respondent BOI as one of the quasi-judicial agencies whose judgments or final orders are appealable to the Court of Appeals via a verified petition for review. Appeals from judgments and final orders of quasi-judicial agencies are now required to be brought to the Court of Appeals on a verified petition for review, under the requirements and conditions in Rule 43 which was precisely formulated and adopted to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.[31]
	GR NO. 141426 2005-05-06	ZENAIDA F. LANTING v. OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Fabian vs. Desierto,[17] we held that only "appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 (of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)." We reiterated this ruling in Namuhe vs. Ombudsman[18] and recently in Barata vs. Abalos, Jr.[19] and Coronel vs. Aniano Desierto, as Ombudsman, and Pedro Sausal, Jr.[20]
	GR No. 145363 2004-02-23	MERCEDES B. GONZALES v. NILO L. ROSAS QUISUMBING, J.
Petitioner's contentions are untenable. The Office of the Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial agency covered by the procedure outlined in Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[23] As a rule, appeals from decisions of quasi-judicial agencies, such as the Office of the Ombudsman, in administrative disciplinary cases, should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. The rule was formulated precisely to provide for a uniform rule of appellate procedure for quasi-judicial agencies.[24] Thus, certiorari under Rule 65 will not lie, as appeal under Rule 43 is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[25] Unfortunately, petitioner failed to appeal within fifteen (15) days from notice of the assailed decision. Certiorari under Rule 65 cannot be resorted to as a substitute for the lost remedy of appeal, especially if such lapse was occasioned by petitioner's neglect or error in the choice of remedies, for the remedies of appeal and certiorari are mutually exclusive and not alternative or successive.[26]
	GR No. 152998 2003-09-23	SIMON Q. AÑONUEVO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
However, petitioners availed of a wrong mode of appeal when they filed a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules on Civil Procedure. Appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.[11] Neither did the petitioners sufficiently establish the existence of any fact or reason to justify its resort to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari.
	GR No. 133715 2000-02-23	DOUGLAS R. VILLAVERT v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO BELLOSILLO, J.
In Fabian, Sec. 27 of RA 6770, which authorizes an appeal to this Court from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases, was declared violative of the proscription in Sec. 30, Art. VI, of the Constitution[20] against a law which increases the appellate jurisdiction of this Court without its advice and consent. In addition, the Court noted that Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure precludes appeals from quasi-judicial agencies, like the Office of the Ombudsman, to the Supreme Court. Consequently, appeals from decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, as reiterated in the subsequent case of Namuhe v. Ombudsman.[21]