Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. HEIRS OF MARGARITA VDA. DE VENTURA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 184130 2015-06-29	SANDRA M. CAM v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO SERENO, C.J.
As officers of the Court, litigators are enjoined to be circumspect about filing petitions for certiorari. This Court deems it necessary to remind its officers that to justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari on the ground of abuse of discretion, the abuse must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility; and it must be so patent as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted without jurisdiction.[66] Grave abuse of discretion is the capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.[67]
	GR No. 172218 2014-11-26	FELICIANO B. DUYON v. FORMER SPECIAL FOURTH DIVISION OF CA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Duyon was correct in his insistence that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of an Ombudsman case. "The Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over orders, directives and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases only. It cannot, therefore, review the orders, directives or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases."[32]
	GR No. 176579 2012-10-09	HEIRS OF WILSON P. GAMBOA v. FINANCE SECRETARY MARGARITO B. TEVES CARPIO, J.
Since the Court limited its resolution on the purely legal issue on the definition of the term "capital" in Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution, and directed the SEC to investigate any violation by PLDT of the 60-40 ownership requirement in favor of Filipino citizens under the Constitution,[57] there is no deprivation of PLDT's property or denial of PLDT's right to due process, contrary to Pangilinan and Nazareno's misimpression. Due process will be afforded to PLDT when it presents proof to the SEC that it complies, as it claims here, with Section 11, Article XII of the Constitution.
	GR No. 190569 2012-04-25	P/INSP. ARIEL S. ARTILLERO v. ORLANDO C. CASIMIRO SERENO, J.
This Court has consistently adopted a policy of non-interference in the exercise of the Ombudsman's investigatory powers.[48] It is incumbent upon petitioner to prove that such discretion was gravely abused in order to warrant this Court's reversal of the Ombudsman's findings.[49] This, petitioner has failed to do.