Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. HEIDI M. ESTANDARTE

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 170146 2011-06-08	WALDO Q. FLORES v. ATTY. ANTONIO F. MONTEMAYOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Respondent who is a presidential appointee is under the disciplinary authority of the OP. Executive Order No. 12 dated April 16, 2001 created the PAGC which was granted the authority to investigate presidential and also non-presidential employees "who may have acted in conspiracy or may have been involved with a presidential appointee or ranking officer mentioned x x x."[10] On this score, we do not agree with respondent that the PAGC should have deferred to the Ombudsman instead of proceeding with the administrative complaint in view of the pendency of his petition for certiorari with the CA challenging the PAGC's jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is a matter of law. Jurisdiction once acquired is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.[11]
	GR No. 192935 2010-12-07	LOUIS 'BAROK' C. BIRAOGO v. PHILIPPINE TRUTH COMMISSION OF 2010 MENDOZA, J.
The OSG counters that there is nothing exclusively legislative about the creation by the President of a fact-finding body such as a truth commission. Pointing to numerous offices created by past presidents, it argues that the authority of the President to create public offices within the Office of the President Proper has long been recognized.[37] According to the OSG, the Executive, just like the other two branches of government, possesses the inherent authority to create fact-finding committees to assist it in the performance of its constitutionally mandated functions and in the exercise of its administrative functions.[38] This power, as the OSG explains it, is but an adjunct of the plenary powers wielded by the President under Section 1 and his power of control under Section 17, both of Article VII of the Constitution.[39]
	AM No. P-09-2700 2010-11-15	ATTY. NOREEN T. BASILIO v. MELINDA M. DINIO BRION, J.
Furthermore, the fact that the complainant resigned three (3) months after the filing of the present complaint cannot, in any way, be an indication of guilt on her part, as the respondent insinuated. Neither can such resignation have the effect of exonerating the respondent from liability. In the first place, Atty. Basilio is not the party accused of committing an irregularity in the performance of duty. If someone should show any sign of guilt, it should be the respondent and not the complaining party. Secondly, the Court already acquired jurisdiction over the present case upon the filing of the administrative complaint. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost by the resignation of the complaining party; it continues until the case is terminated.[12]
	GR No. 172700 2010-07-23	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLSON RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
It is a hornbook rule that jurisdiction is a matter of law. Jurisdiction, once acquired, is not lost upon the instance of the parties but continues until the case is terminated.[32] When herein complainants first filed the complaint in the Ombudsman, jurisdiction was already vested on the latter. Jurisdiction could no longer be transferred to the sangguniang bayan by virtue of a subsequent complaint filed by the same complainants.
	GR No. 183678 2010-03-15	RENE VENTENILLA PUSE v. LIGAYA DELOS SANTOS-PUSE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner's reliance on the cases of Emin v. De Leon [23] and Office of the Ombudsman v. Estandarte [24] to support his claim that it was the DepEd Investigating Committee created pursuant to Rep. Act No. 4670 which had jurisdiction to try him because he is a public school teacher, is without merit as these cases are not in point. In Emin, the issue was which between the DepEd Investigating Committee (under Rep. Act No. 4670) and the CSC (under P.D. No. 807) had jurisdiction to try the administrative case, while in Estandarte, the issue was which between the Office of the Ombudsman and the DepEd Investigating Committee had jurisdiction over the administrative case filed in said case. In contrast, the instant case involves the Board of Professional Teachers which, under Rep. Act No. 7836, had jurisdiction over administrative cases against professional teachers and has the power to suspend and revoke a licensed teacher's certificate of registration after due proceedings.
	GR No. 167711 2008-10-10	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. RAMON C. GALICIA REYES, R.T., J.
This is not a novel issue. This Court has recently ruled in Office of the Ombudsman v. Estandarte[27] that by virtue of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, original jurisdiction belongs to the school superintendent. The intention of the law, which is to impose a separate standard and procedural requirement for administrative cases involving public school teachers, must be given consideration.[28] Hence, the Ombudsman must yield to this committee of the Division School Superintendent. Even in the earlier case of Alcala v. Villar,[29] the Court held that:Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides that the Ombudsman shall have disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the Government and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies, including members of the Cabinet, local government, government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries except over officials who may be removed by impeachment or over Members of Congress, and the Judiciary. However, in Fabella v. Court of Appeals, it was held that R.A. No. 4670, the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, specifically covers and governs administrative proceedings involving public school teachers. x x x[30] (Emphasis supplied)