Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

JOSE P. LOPEZ v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 154992 2008-02-13	HARRY G. LIM Petitioner v. ANIANO DESIERTO VELASCO JR., J.
Lastly, petitioner asserts that the Ombudsman committed serious reversible error in ruling that the appeal of DENR Case No. 5231 to the OP precludes the filing of criminal charges against Cerilles and dela Peña. Petitioner asks this Court to apply the ruling in Jose Lopez, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman[11] to compel the Ombudsman to file charges against Cerilles and dela Peña by upholding the June 2, 2001 Resolution of Corral.
	GR No. 173562 2008-01-22	CENTRAL CEMENT CORPORATION v. MINES ADJUDICATION BOARD and ROCK REYES, R.T., J.
In Lopez v. Office of the Ombudsman,[35] this Court stated:The constitutional right to a "speedy disposition of cases" is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party to a case may demand expeditious action on all officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.
	GR No. 145851 2001-11-22	ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. SANDIGANBAYAN PANGANIBAN, J.
In the very recent case Lopez Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman et al.,[35] the Court deemed it appropriate to dismiss directly the criminal suit before the Sandiganbayan in the interest of the speedy disposition thereof. Thus, it ruled as follows:"x x x [T]his Court applying the ruling in the Roque case, citing Tatad, likewise resolves to directly dismiss the informations already filed before the Sandiganbayan against petitioner `in the interest of the speedy disposition of case' x x x."