Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RENATO F. HERRERA v. PLARIDEL ELMER J. BOHOL

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 160596 2009-03-20	REPUBLIC v. IGNACIO BAJAO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
have long been resolved by the Court in Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Armilla,[22] Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals and Santos,[23] and Herrera v. Bohol.[24]
	GR No. 172729 2007-06-08	REPUBLIC v. WOODROW CANASTILLO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Indeed, Section 27 of RA 6770 provides that any order, directive, or decision of the Office of the Ombudsman imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, and suspension of not more than one month's salary, shall be final and unappealable. In the instant case, the penalty imposed by the Office of the Ombudsman after finding herein respondents guilty of simple neglect of duty was "fine equivalent to their one (1) month's pay."[13] Following our ruling in Herrera v. Bohol,[14] the penalty imposed upon respondents, which is fine equivalent to one (1) month salary, is included in the phrase "suspension of not more than one month's salary," thus:There is no penalty as suspension of salary in our administrative law, rules and regulations. Salaries are simply not suspended. Rather it is the official or employee concerned who is suspended with a corresponding withholding of salaries following the principle of "no work, no pay." Or, an official or employee may be fined an amount equivalent to his or her monthly salary as penalty without an accompanying suspension from work.
	GR NO. 163089 2006-12-06	REPUBLIC v. JESUS FRANCISCO CALLEJO, SR., J.
From the foregoing provisions, it was held in Lapid v. Court of Appeals[28] that orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative cases imposing the penalty of public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent to one month salary shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the aggrieved party is given the right to appeal within ten (10) days from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision; thus, the judgment will become final after the lapse of the reglementary period of appeal, if no appeal is perfected or, an appeal therefrom having been taken.[29] In the instant case, since the penalty imposed upon respondents was "one month suspension without pay" only, as a matter of law, the decision of the Ombudsman is final and unappealable. As held in Herrera v. Bohol,[30] where petitioner therein was likewise found guilty of simple misconduct and suspended for one (1) month without pay, the decision of the Ombudsman can no longer be rectified, much less, reversed.
	GR NO. 161077 2006-03-10	SAMSON B. BEDRUZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CARPIO MORALES, J.
Findings of fact of the Office of the Ombudsman are conclusive when supported by substantial evidence[22] and are accorded due respect and weight especially when they are affirmed by the Court of Appeals.[23] It is only when there is grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings may aptly be made.[24]