Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. FARIDA T. LUCERO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 196231 2014-01-28	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
As the Ombudsman is expected to be an "activist watchman,"[37] the Court has upheld its actions, although not squarely falling under the broad powers granted it by the Constitution and by RA No. 6770, if these actions are reasonably in line with its official function and consistent with the law and the Constitution.[38]
	GR No. 165132 2012-03-07	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. NELLIE R. APOLONIO BRION, J.
We affirmed and consistently applied this ruling in the cases of Gemma P. Cabalit v. Commission on Audit-Region VII,[41] Office of the Ombudsman v. Masing,[42] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[43] Office of the Ombudsman v. Laja,[44] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals,[45] Office of the Ombudsman v. Lucero,[46] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals.[47]
	GR No. 180236 2012-01-17	GEMMA P. CABALIT v. COA-REGION VII VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In the exercise of his duties, the Ombudsman is given full administrative disciplinary authority. His power is not limited merely to receiving, processing complaints, or recommending penalties. He is to conduct investigations, hold hearings, summon witnesses and require production of evidence and place respondents under preventive suspension. This includes the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or censure of a public officer or employee.[57]
	GR No. 185954 2010-02-16	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MAXIMO D. SISON VELASCO JR., J.
It should be noted that the Office of the Ombudsman was aware of the appeal filed by Sison. The Rules of Court provides that the appeal shall be taken by filing a verified petition for review with the CA, with proof of service of a copy on the court or agency a quo.[23] Clearly, the Office of the Ombudsman had sufficient time within which to file a motion to intervene. As such, its failure to do so should not now be countenanced. The Office of the Ombudsman is expected to be an "activist watchman," not merely a passive onlooker.[24]
	GR No. 167711 2008-10-10	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. RAMON C. GALICIA REYES, R.T., J.
In the exercise of its duties, the Ombudsman is given full administrative disciplinary authority. His power is not limited merely to receiving, processing complaints, or recommending penalties. He is to conduct investigations, hold hearings, summon witnesses and require production of evidence and place respondents under preventive suspension. This includes the power to impose the penalty of removal, suspension, demotion, fine, or censure of a public officer or employee.[26]
	GR No. 175573 2008-09-11	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO CORONA, J.
The Ombudsman is expected to be an "activist watchman," not merely a passive onlooker.[18] A statute granting powers to an agency created by the Constitution â€• such as RA 6770 â€• should be liberally construed to advance the objectives for which it was created.[19] In Buenaseda v. Flavier,[20] we held that any interpretation of RA 6770 that hampers the work of the Ombudsman should be avoided.