Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

DR. MARCELO M. ALMANZOR v. DR. BENITO S. FELIX

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 159349 2007-09-07	VICTOR ANDRES MANHIT v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN TINGA, J.
Petitioner admitted knowledge of the existence of the donation[29] but denies knowledge of the special account. But this denial cannot overcome the common finding of fact of the OMB and the Court of Appeals that he was aware of the existence of the special account. The Court is not a trier of facts. Absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion, we shall not disturb such findings. The Supreme Court cannot weigh once more the evidence submitted not only before the Ombudsman but also before the Court of Appeals.[30]
	GR NO. 155749 2007-02-08	ERLINDA F. SANTOS v. MA. CAREST A. RASALAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We shall not disturb the above findings. Under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770, findings of fact by the Ombudsman are conclusive as long as these are supported by substantial evidence, [10] as in this case.
	GR NO. 162403 2005-05-16	FLORENCIO L. ADVINCULA v. ROMEO DICEN CALLEJO, SR., J.
The issue on the improper execution of the penalty involving the petitioner's suspension is moot. In view of the fact that the petitioner is indeed liable for misconduct and that he has served out the penalty, the Court finds no need to still resolve the same. As a general rule, courts should not take cognizance of moot and academic questions.[36] Further, Section 7 of the Ombudsman's Administrative Order No. 14-A, Series of 2000 states that:Section 7. Finality and execution of decision. Where the respondent is absolved of the charge, and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision may be appealed within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the decision or order denying the motion for reconsideration.