Lawyerly

GR No. 177600

2015-10-19

BERSAMIN, J.

Verily, the power of the courts to punish for contempt is to be exercised cautiously, sparingly, and judiciously.[36] Self-restraint in wielding contempt powers should be the rule unless the act complained of is clearly contumacious. An act, to be contumacious, must manifest willfulness, bad faith, or deliberate intent to cause injustice.[37]

GR Nos. 170500 & 170510-11

2011-06-01

MARCELO G. GANADEN v. CA

VILLARAMA, JR., J.

Under this provision, a respondent who is found administratively liable by the Office of the Ombudsman and is slapped with a penalty of suspension of more than one month from service has the right to file an appeal with the CA under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. But although a respondent is given the right to appeal, the act of filing an appeal does not stay the execution of the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman. Such has been the consistent ruling of this Court since our decision in In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH[14] which overturned the rulings in the Lopez and Lapid cases.

GR No. 166495

2011-02-16

ROQUE C. FACURA v. CA

MENDOZA, J.

In the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of the DPWH,[36] we held: The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman are clearly procedural and no vested right of the petitioner is violated as he is considered preventively suspended while his case is on appeal. Moreover, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. Besides, there is no such thing as a vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office.

GR No. 172224

2011-01-26

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

The CA is incorrect. The provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman is clear that an appeal by a public official from a decision meted out by the Ombudsman shall not stop the decision from being executory. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Macabulos,[19] we held that decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal in the CA. As explained by this Court in the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH,[20] this provision in the rules of the Ombudsman is similar to that provided under Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[21]

GR No. 175573

2010-10-05

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO

CORONA, J.

In the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of the DPWH,[5] we held: The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman are clearly procedural and no vested right of the petitioner is violated as he is considered preventively suspended while his case is on appeal. Moreover, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. Besides, there is no such thing as a vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office.

GR No. 157384

2009-06-05

ERLINDA I. BILDNER v. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO

VELASCO JR., J.

The contempt power, however plenary it may seem, must be exercised judiciously and sparingly with utmost self-restraint with the end in view of utilizing it for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication.[25] To be sure, courts and judges, as institutions, are neither sacrosanct nor immune to public criticisms of their conduct.[26] And well-recognized is the right of citizens to criticize in a fair and respectful manner and through legitimate channels the acts of courts or judges,[27] who in turn ought to be patient and tolerate as much as possible everything which appears as hasty and unguarded expression of passion or momentary outbreak of disappointment at the outcome of a case. Even snide remarks, as People v. Godoy teaches, do not necessarily partake the nature of contumacious utterance actionable under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.[28]

GR No. 159395

2008-05-07

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA

CARPIO, J.

Hence, in the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH,[30] the Court noted that Section 7 of AO 17 provides for execution of the decisions pending appeal, which provision is similar to Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[31]

GR No. 143581

2008-01-07

KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO. v. ALBERTO A. LERMA

VELASCO JR., J.

While RA 9285 was passed only in 2004, it nonetheless applies in the instant case since it is a procedural law which has a retroactive effect. Likewise, KOGIES filed its application for arbitration before the KCAB on July 1, 1998 and it is still pending because no arbitral award has yet been rendered. Thus, RA 9285 is applicable to the instant case. Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any personal rights because no vested right has yet attached nor arisen from them.[42]

GR No. 175451

2007-09-28

ROSARIO L. DADULO v. VS.THE CA

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. In the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH,[6] we held that: The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman are clearly procedural and no vested right of the petitioner is violated as he is considered preventively suspended while his case is on appeal. Moreover, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. Besides, there is no such thing as a vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office.[7]

GR NO. 175895

2007-04-12

EDMUNDO JOSE T. BUENCAMINO v. CA

SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

In its comment, the Office of the Ombudsman countered that the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the assailed Resolutions; and that the cases cited by petitioner are not applicable to this case, the same having been overturned by the ruling of this Court in "In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPW;"[6] and that Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 has been amended by Administrative Order No. 17, thus:x x x this Honorable Court emphatically declared that Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman was already amended by Administrative Order No. 17 wherein the pertinent provision on the execution of the Ombudsman's decision pending appeal is now similar to Section 47 of the "Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service" that is, decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal.

	GR No. 177600 2015-10-19	MAYOR ANWAR BERUA BALINDONG v. CA BERSAMIN, J.
Verily, the power of the courts to punish for contempt is to be exercised cautiously, sparingly, and judiciously.[36] Self-restraint in wielding contempt powers should be the rule unless the act complained of is clearly contumacious. An act, to be contumacious, must manifest willfulness, bad faith, or deliberate intent to cause injustice.[37]
	GR Nos. 170500 & 170510-11 2011-06-01	MARCELO G. GANADEN v. CA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Under this provision, a respondent who is found administratively liable by the Office of the Ombudsman and is slapped with a penalty of suspension of more than one month from service has the right to file an appeal with the CA under Rule 43 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. But although a respondent is given the right to appeal, the act of filing an appeal does not stay the execution of the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman. Such has been the consistent ruling of this Court since our decision in In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH[14] which overturned the rulings in the Lopez and Lapid cases.
	GR No. 166495 2011-02-16	ROQUE C. FACURA v. CA MENDOZA, J.
In the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of the DPWH,[36] we held: The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman are clearly procedural and no vested right of the petitioner is violated as he is considered preventively suspended while his case is on appeal. Moreover, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. Besides, there is no such thing as a vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office.
	GR No. 172224 2011-01-26	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
The CA is incorrect. The provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman is clear that an appeal by a public official from a decision meted out by the Ombudsman shall not stop the decision from being executory. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Macabulos,[19] we held that decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal in the CA. As explained by this Court in the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH,[20] this provision in the rules of the Ombudsman is similar to that provided under Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[21]
	GR No. 175573 2010-10-05	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO CORONA, J.
In the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of the DPWH,[5] we held: The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman are clearly procedural and no vested right of the petitioner is violated as he is considered preventively suspended while his case is on appeal. Moreover, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. Besides, there is no such thing as a vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office.
	GR No. 157384 2009-06-05	ERLINDA I. BILDNER v. ERLINDA K. ILUSORIO VELASCO JR., J.
The contempt power, however plenary it may seem, must be exercised judiciously and sparingly with utmost self-restraint with the end in view of utilizing it for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication.[25] To be sure, courts and judges, as institutions, are neither sacrosanct nor immune to public criticisms of their conduct.[26] And well-recognized is the right of citizens to criticize in a fair and respectful manner and through legitimate channels the acts of courts or judges,[27] who in turn ought to be patient and tolerate as much as possible everything which appears as hasty and unguarded expression of passion or momentary outbreak of disappointment at the outcome of a case. Even snide remarks, as People v. Godoy teaches, do not necessarily partake the nature of contumacious utterance actionable under Rule 71 of the Rules of Court.[28]
	GR No. 159395 2008-05-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA CARPIO, J.
Hence, in the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH,[30] the Court noted that Section 7 of AO 17 provides for execution of the decisions pending appeal, which provision is similar to Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.[31]
	GR No. 143581 2008-01-07	KOREA TECHNOLOGIES CO. v. ALBERTO A. LERMA VELASCO JR., J.
While RA 9285 was passed only in 2004, it nonetheless applies in the instant case since it is a procedural law which has a retroactive effect. Likewise, KOGIES filed its application for arbitration before the KCAB on July 1, 1998 and it is still pending because no arbitral award has yet been rendered. Thus, RA 9285 is applicable to the instant case. Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to that extent. As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any personal rights because no vested right has yet attached nor arisen from them.[42]
	GR No. 175451 2007-09-28	ROSARIO L. DADULO v. VS.THE CA YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
A decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases shall be executed as a matter of course. The Office of the Ombudsman shall ensure that the decision shall be strictly enforced and properly implemented. The refusal or failure by any officer without just cause to comply with an order of the Office of the Ombudsman to remove, suspend, demote, fine, or censure shall be a ground for disciplinary action against said officer. In the case of In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPWH,[6] we held that: The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman are clearly procedural and no vested right of the petitioner is violated as he is considered preventively suspended while his case is on appeal. Moreover, in the event he wins on appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. Besides, there is no such thing as a vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office.[7]
	GR NO. 175895 2007-04-12	EDMUNDO JOSE T. BUENCAMINO v. CA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In its comment, the Office of the Ombudsman countered that the Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the assailed Resolutions; and that the cases cited by petitioner are not applicable to this case, the same having been overturned by the ruling of this Court in "In the Matter to Declare in Contempt of Court Hon. Simeon A. Datumanong, Secretary of DPW;"[6] and that Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 07 has been amended by Administrative Order No. 17, thus:x x x this Honorable Court emphatically declared that Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman was already amended by Administrative Order No. 17 wherein the pertinent provision on the execution of the Ombudsman's decision pending appeal is now similar to Section 47 of the "Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service" that is, decisions of the Ombudsman are immediately executory even pending appeal.

IN MATTER TO DECLARE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT SIMEON A. DATUMANONG IN LATTER''S CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS