Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MANUEL D. LAXINA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 172700 2010-07-23	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ROLSON RODRIGUEZ CARPIO, J.
The facts in the present case are analogous to those in Laxina, Sr. v. Ombudsman,[29] which likewise involved identical administrative complaints filed in both the Ombudsman and the sangguniang panlungsod against a punong barangay for grave misconduct. The Court held therein that the rule against forum shopping applied only to judicial cases or proceedings, not to administrative cases.[30] Thus, even if complainants filed in the Ombudsman and the sangguniang bayan identical complaints against private respondent, they did not violate the rule against forum shopping because their complaint was in the nature of an administrative case.
	GR Nos. 162335 & 162605 2008-12-18	SEVERINO M. MANOTOK IV v. HEIRS OF HOMER L. BARQUE TINGA, J.
These provisions indubitably establish that the administrative reconstitution of Torrens titles is intended for non-controversial cases, or especially where the subject property is not covered by an existing title in favor of a person other than the applicant. Such an implication is consonant with the rule that the reconstitution proceedings are not the venue for confirmation or adjudication of title, but merely a means by which a previously adjudicated title whose original has been lost or destroyed may be reissued to its owner.[44]
	GR No. 172580 2008-07-23	LOURDESITA M. BIBAS v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
A finding of guilt in an administrative case would have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge. Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This is different from the degree of proof required in criminal proceedings, which calls for a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. x x x[15]
	GR NO. 154678 2007-07-17	CORAZON C. BALBASTRO v. NESTOR JUNIO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
As to the findings of the Ombudsman, it is settled that in administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence -- that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[51] Factual findings of administrative bodies, when supported by substantial evidence, are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal.[52] And a finding of guilt in an administrative case would also have to be sustained for as long as it is supported by substantial evidence that respondent has committed the acts stated in the complaint or formal charge.[53]
	GR No. 169802 2007-06-08	OVERSEAS WORKERS WELFARE ADMINISTRATION v. ATTY. CESAR L. CHAVEZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, as aptly pointed out by the OSG, the acts sought to be prohibited had been accomplished. Injunction will not lie where the acts sought to be enjoined have already been accomplished or consummated.[60] The wheels of OWWA's reorganization started to run upon the approval by the Board of Trustees of its Resolution No. 001 entitled, "Approving the Structure of the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration." Subsequently, a series of issuances which approved the organizational structure and staffing pattern of the agency was issued by the DBM, the OWWA Administrator, and by the DOLE. Resolution No. 001 has already been implemented. Case law has it that a writ of preliminary injunction will not issue if the act sought to be enjoined is a fait accompli.
	GR NO. 167848 2007-04-27	BANK OF COMMERCE v. SPS. PRUDENCIO SAN PABLO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As we have explained quite frequently, a party may be barred from raising questions of jurisdiction when estoppel by laches has set in. Estoppel by laches is failure or neglect for unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do what, by exercising due diligence, ought to have been done earlier, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned it or has acquiesced to the correctness or fairness of its resolution. This doctrine is based on grounds of public policy which, for the peace of the society, requires the discouragement of stale claims, and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but is principally an issue of inequity or unfairness in permitting a right or claim to be enforced or espoused.[23]