Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. JOEL S. SAMANIEGO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 191176 2015-10-14	DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR v. RAUL V. GATUZ BRION, J.
resolution dated October 5, 2010.[18] We unanimously held en bane that the decisions of the Ombudsman in disciplinary cases are immediately executory and cannot be stayed by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ.[19] This legal question has been settled with finality.
	GR No. 178343 2014-07-14	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. ALEX M. VALENCERINA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Second, it is a fundamental legal principle that when two rules apply to a particular case, that which was specially designed for the said case must prevail over the other. Evidently, the aforesaid Section 7, Rule III is a special rule applicable to administrative complaints cognizable by the OMB,[51] while Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules applies to appeals from quasi-judicial bodies[52] in general, including the OMB. Thus, as between the two rules, Section 7, Rule III should prevail over the application of Section 12, Rule 43 of the Rules in appeals from a decision of the OMB in an administrative case. As held in the case of OMB v. Samaniego:[53]
	GR No. 202303 2014-06-04	GERARDO R. VILLASEÑOR v. OMBUDSMAN MENDOZA, J.
Both petitioners aver that Ombudsman v. Samaniego,[11] the case relied upon by the CA, cannot be applied to their case because the principal basis of the ruling was Section 7, as amended, which they insist is inapplicable to them.
	GR No. 202303 2014-06-04	GERARDO R. VILLASEÑOR v. OMBUDSMAN MENDOZA, J.
The nature of appealable decisions of the Ombudsman was, in fact, settled in Ombudsman v. Samaniego, where it was held that such are immediately executory pending appeal and may not be stayed by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ.[14] The petitioners argue that this particular case cannot be applied to them because it was based on Section 7, as amended by A.O. No. 17, which cannot be applied to them retroactively. Their argument cannot be given credence. As already discussed, Section 7 may be retroactively applied in the case of the petitioners.
	GR No. 189801 2013-10-23	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Meanwhile, acting on a second motion for partial reconsideration in G.R. No. 175573, the Court modified its 2008 Samaniego ruling in a Resolution dated October 5, 2010 (2010 Samaniego ruling), "particularly [its] pronouncement with respect to the stay of the decision of the Ombudsman during the pendency of an appeal."[24] The dispositive portion of the 2010 Samaniego ruling thus reads:[25]
	GR No. 166495 2011-02-16	ROQUE C. FACURA v. CA MENDOZA, J.
The issue of whether or not an appeal of the Ombudsman decision in an administrative case carries with it the immediate suspension of the imposed penalty has been laid to rest in the recent resolution of the case of Ombudsman v. Samaniego,[33] where this Court held that the decision of the Ombudsman is immediately executory pending appeal and may not be stayed by the filing of an appeal or the issuance of an injunctive writ, to wit: Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman,[34] as amended by Administrative Order No. 17 dated September 15, 2003, provides: