Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ v. ADJUTO ABILLE

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR NO. 152258 2006-11-30	ROGELIO P. ANTALAN v. ANIANO DESIERTO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Bismonte-Beltran also prepared an Information[14] dated October 4, 2001 charging Antalan with Violation of Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019. She certified therein that a preliminary investigation was conducted in the case and that there is probable cause to believe that Antalan committed the crime charged.[15]
	GR NO. 164664 2006-07-20	CARLOS C. FUENTES v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
On May 27, 2002, the Ombudsman approved a Resolution[21] finding probable cause against the respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019. The defenses offered by the respondents were rejected as mere "alibis," considering that the disbursement vouchers and other supporting documents for payment of the transactions between the Municipality and Davao Toyozu, Inc. had been processed as early as August 3, 2001 (for the dump truck) and July 4, 2001 (for the bulldozing works). It held that respondents simply refused to pay petitioner's claims upon demand and despite receiving letters from the Ombudsman. Respondent Mayor made no mention about Fuentes' withdrawal of the vouchers and other documents in his Letter dated September 20, 2001. It pointed out that the vouchers and documents should not have been turned over to Fuentes in the first place. The claim that no funds were available was belied by the allotments which were duly certified by the Budget Officer and Municipal Accountant.
	GR NO. 141593-94 2006-07-12	MELENCIO BERBOSO v. CA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that petitioners Berbosos were not notified of the application for Conversion Order filed by private respondents Carloses, this lack of notice had been cured[56] when they actively intervened and participated in the proceedings before the DARAB, the PARAB, the Office of the President, and the Court of Appeals. The petitioners Berbosos made appeals and had also repeatedly moved for the reconsideration of each decision that was adverse to them. Time and again, we ruled that what is repugnant to due process is the absolute lack of opportunity to be heard.[57] The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[58] Due process is satisfied when the parties are afforded fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side of the controversy or an opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[59]
	GR NO. 161640 2005-12-09	SAMSON B. BEDRUZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
After the preliminary investigation, the Graft Investigation Officer issued a Resolution recommending that the petitioners be prosecuted for violation of Section 3(e)[6] of R.A. No. 3019 while the complaint against Yamat, Baybay, Olegario and Barba be dismissed for want of probable cause. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation. An Information was filed before the Sandiganbayan on June 28, 2001, thus:That on or about 10 June 1999, sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Tagaytay, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused SAMSON B. BEDRUZ and EMMA C. LUNA, and GREGORIO C. MONREAL, all are public officers, being then the City Engineer and City Administrator, and City Assessor, respectively, while in the performance of their official functions, committing the offense in relation to their office, and taking advantage of their official functions, acting with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally process, sign and approve the fencing permit application of Spouses Reynaldo and Ma. Lourdes Suarez, through Attorney-in-Fact, Edgardo Pena, inspite of the blatant defects on the documents submitted, thereby giving unwarranted benefits to Spouses Suarez, to the damage and prejudice of private parties, Spouses Liongson.[7] The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. 26683. On July 16, 2001, the petitioners filed a motion for partial reconsideration of the Ombudsman's Resolution finding probable cause. On August 7, 2001, they filed with the Sandiganbayan a Motion for Reinvestigation alleging that their motion for partial reconsideration was still pending with the Ombudsman and that they had meritorious defenses.[8] Finding merit in the said motion, the Sandiganbayan granted the motion and directed the Ombudsman to conduct a reinvestigation.[9]
	GR Nos. 150353-54 2004-07-27	ANTONIO BALAY MATURAN v. PEOPLE QUISUMBING, J.
On postscript, ... upon the recommendation of the commission on audit, the radio antenna was reinstalled and transferred to the newly constructed PNP building at Prosperidad, Agusan del Sur.[6] On instructions of Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel of the Ombudsman reviewed the resolution of the OSP. In its Memorandum of September 12, 2001, the Office of the Chief Legal Counsel approved the withdrawal of the information for violation of Sec. 3 (g) of Rep. Act No. 3019, but recommended the prosecution of petitioner for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of Rep. Act No. 3019. The Office of the Chief Legal Counsel explained: . . .