Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ATTY. GIL A. VALERA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 167278 2008-02-27	ATTY. GIL A. VALERA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PUNO, CJ.
In fine, while the Court refrained from tackling the first charge against petitioner, the Court finds that as to the second and third charges, respondent Deputy Ombudsman did not err in finding petitioner guilty of grave misconduct.[15] On September 30, 2005, without going into the issue of petitioner's guilt, the Court En Banc rendered a decision in G.R. No. 164250 ruling that the power to place a public officer or employee under preventive suspension pending an investigation is lodged only with the Ombudsman or the Deputy Ombudsmen and affirmed the nullification and setting aside by the appellate court of the preventive suspension order of the Special Prosecutor.
	GR No. 167278 2008-02-27	ATTY. GIL A. VALERA v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN PUNO, CJ.
One final note. It appears that petitioner is no longer a Deputy Commissioner of Customs.[32] This fact, however, does not render this petition moot and academic. As held in Gallo v. Cordero: . . . [T]he jurisdiction that was ours at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost by the mere fact that the respondent public official had ceased to be in office during the pendency of his case. The Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof. A contrary rule would be fraught with injustices and pregnant with dreadful and dangerous implications. For what remedy would the people have against a judge or any other public official who resorts to wrongful and illegal conduct during his last days in office? xxx If innocent, respondent official merits vindication of his name and integrity as he leaves the government which he has served well and faithfully; if guilty, he deserves to receive the corresponding censure and a penalty proper and imposable under the situation.[33] WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated February 28, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP. No. 86281 is hereby AFFIRMED.
	GR NO. 149508 2007-10-10	SPS. RICARDO AND LEONILA DE LOS SANTOS v. MA. SOCORRO V. VDA. DE MANGUBAT AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
The rule that the certification on non-forum shopping should be signed by the petitioner has been relaxed by the Court in several instances where procedural lapses are overlooked in the interest of substantial justice and for compelling reasons.[24]
	GR NO. 166797 2007-07-10	JOSE M. GALARIO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of this primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases. (Emphases supplied.) It is clear from the foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions that the Ombudsman is given a plenary and unqualified authority with respect to its investigatory and prosecutory[34] power, subject only to the constitutional limitations, and its coverage cannot be limited to the allegations in any complaint-affidavit that may have been filed against a public officer. In fact, the Ombudsman may investigate and prosecute on its own, without need for a complaint-affidavit, for as long as the case falls within its jurisdiction. Hence, regardless of the allegations and accusations against the public officer in the affidavit-complaint, it still rests upon the Ombudsman to determine the proper crime or offense which can be charged against the public officer depending on the findings of the Ombudsman in the preliminary investigation.
	GR NO. 166062 2006-09-26	SALVADOR M. PEREZ v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Neither does it help that, under Section 11(4) of Republic Act No. 6770, the Special Prosecutor was given the rank and salary of Deputy Ombudsman. In Office of the Ombudsman v. Valera,[36] this Court held:The petitioner's contention that since the Special Prosecutor is of the same rank as that of a Deputy Ombudsman, then the former can rightfully perform all the functions of the latter, including the power to preventively suspend, is not persuasive. Under civil service laws, rank classification determines the salary and status of government officials and employees. Although there is substantial equality in the level of their respective functions, those occupying the same rank do not necessarily have the same powers nor perform the same functions.[37] There being no express delegation of the power to prosecute, we are constrained to go back to our main query: Is there an implied delegation of the power to prosecute under Republic Act No. 6770, such that Special Prosecutors are presumed to have been delegated such power, in the absence of a prohibition from the Ombudsman?