Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EVELIO P. BARATA v. BENJAMIN ABALOS

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 197307 2014-02-26	FLOR GUPILAN-AGUILAR v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VELASCO JR., J.
provisions of Rule 43.[27] Barata v. Abalos, Jr.,[28] Coronel v. Desierto,[29] and recently Dimagiba v. Espartero[30] have reiterated the pertinent holding in Fabian. The Decision of the Ombudsman is mandatory and immediately executory
	GR No. 154952 2012-07-16	HILARION F. DIMAGIBA v. JULITA ESPARTERO PERALTA, J.
Anent the first issue, petitioners contend that the CA erred in acting on the petition which was filed beyond the 10-day reglementary period for filing the same as provided under Section 27 of RA 6770. They claim that respondents received the Ombudsman order denying their motion for reconsideration on August 25, 2000 and filed a motion for extension of time with the CA on September 11, 2000, which was the 15th day from receipt of the order, relying on our ruling in Fabian v. Desierto[27] and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court. Petitioners cite the cases of Lapid v. CA[28] and Barata v. Abalos, Jr.[29] to support the application of the 10-day period for filing the petition in the CA from receipt of the Ombudsman order.
	GR No. 154652 2009-08-14	PRUDENCIO M. REYES v. SIMPLICIO C. BELISARIO BRION, J.
Notably, exoneration is not mentioned in Section 27 as final and unappealable. However, its inclusion is implicit for, as we held in Barata v. Abalos,[21] if a sentence of censure, reprimand and a one-month suspension is considered final and unappealable, so should exoneration.[22]
	GR NO. 155737 2005-10-19	R TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE HAWK TRANSPORT CORPORATION QUISUMBING, J.
On the matter of appeal, we ruled on several occasions that the right to appeal is neither a natural right nor a part of due process. It is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law.[15] The party who seeks to appeal must comply with the requirements of the rules. Failure to do so results in the loss of that right.[16]
	GR NO. 141426 2005-05-06	ZENAIDA F. LANTING v. OMBUDSMAN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Fabian vs. Desierto,[17] we held that only "appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 (of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure)." We reiterated this ruling in Namuhe vs. Ombudsman[18] and recently in Barata vs. Abalos, Jr.[19] and Coronel vs. Aniano Desierto, as Ombudsman, and Pedro Sausal, Jr.[20]
	GR No. 152998 2003-09-23	SIMON Q. AÑONUEVO v. CA YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
This Court is not a trier of facts. Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive,[19] as in the case at bar. Substantial evidence, which is more than a mere scintilla but is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, suffices to hold one administratively liable.[20] The "substantial evidence" rule in administrative proceedings merely requires such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[21]