Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MORONG WATER DISTRICT v. OFFICE OF DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 154117 2009-10-02	ERNESTO FRANCISCO v. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO A. DESIERTO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Even if the issues involved here are factual, petitioner invokes the power of the Court to reverse the decision of the Ombudsman by alleging that the latter acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. However, as in Morong Water District v. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman,[134] we find that:[The] Order and the Resolution of the Ombudsman are based on substantial evidence. In dismissing the complaint of petitioner, we cannot say that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion so as to call for the exercise of our supervisory powers over him. This court is not a trier of facts. As long as there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman's decision, that ... decision will not be overturned.
	GR No. 165776 2008-04-30	GENEVIEVE O. GAAS v. RASOL L. MITMUG QUISUMBING, J.
As to the first issue, this Court has held that any appeal or application for remedy against a decision or finding of the Office of the Ombudsman may only be entertained by the Supreme Court on a pure question of law. Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989, provides that "[n]o court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court on a pure question of law." Moreover, Section 27 of the said Act provides further that "[f]indings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive."[12]
	GR No. 174826 2008-04-08	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. Engr. ALFONSO P. ESPIRITU CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In an administrative proceeding, the quantum of proof required for a finding of guilt is only substantial evidence, meaning that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.[21] The complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint.[22] It is also settled that when there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman's decision, that decision will not be overturned.[23] In the case at bar, Huevos was not able to substantiate his allegations. Considering that petitioner's Decision is based on Huevos's evidence, said decision has no leg to stand on and must perforce be overturned.
	GR NO. 158672 2007-08-07	COA v. AGAPITO A. HINAMPAS GARCIA, J.
When there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman's decision, that decision will not be overturned.[14] However, the Danao cases present an instance where there is no substantial evidence to back up the OOMB's decision. Hence, in CA-G.R. SP No. 72790, the CA was correct in setting aside the OOMB decision in this case. As the appellate court elucidated:But then, on the basis of the records, these PDS on which the [OOMB's] Decision dated September 19, 2000 (September 26, 2001) as well as the Order dated February 27, 2002 are based is being questioned by herein petitioner to be not the PDS that he has submitted to the Bureau of Customs and the Office of the Civil Service Commission. Hence, the entries appearing therein are doubtful.
	GR NO. 159314 2006-06-26	EDGARDO V. ESTARIJA v. EDWARD F. RANADA QUISUMBING, J.
Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. And when the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are manifest, the public officer shall be liable for grave misconduct.[16] We are convinced that the decision of the Ombudsman finding petitioner administratively liable for grave misconduct is based on substantial evidence. When there is substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman's decision, that decision will not be overturned.[17]
	GR NOS. 160577-94 2005-12-16	GREGORIO SINGIAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
In sum, the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan were far from being abusive of their discretions. On the contrary, their findings were based on evidence extant in the records. In finding probable cause against petitioner, there was no grave abuse of discretion committed so as to call for the exercise of our supervisory powers over them. This Court is not a trier of facts.[26] As long as there are substantial evidence in support of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan's decisions, these decisions will not be overturned.[27]