Title: Lopez vs. CA G.R. No.

144573, September 24, 2002

Facts:

Private respondent Atty. Romeo A. Liggayu, Manager of the Legal Department

andResident Ombudsman of the PCSO was administratively charged before the
Office of theOmbudsman with: 1) Violation of Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman
Act of 1989), forissuing a subpoena without authority purportedly in relation to
OMB-0-99-0571 entitled,
FACT-FINDING AND INTELLIGENCE BUREAU versus MANUEL MORATO, et al.
; and 2)complicity in the anomalous contracts entered into by PCSO and Golden
Lion Films forthe production of 1,092 episodes of Ang Pangarap Kong Jackpot,
subject matter of OMB-0-99-0571 and 0572 entitled,
FFIB vs. MANUEL MORATO, et al.
and OMB-ADM-0-99-0254 entitled,
FFIB vs. ISRAEL G. ESTRELLA, et al.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the charge against him with regards
theanomalous contracts however he was found guilty from issuing a subpoena
withoutauthority. The penalty of 6 months suspension without pay is imposed upon
him by theoffice. His motion for reconsideration was denied and so he file for a
petition for review before the Court of Appeals and prayed for the issuance of a
temporary restrainingorder/and or writ of preliminary injunction to restrain the
execution of the decision of theOffice of the Ombudsman.On March 8, 2000,
petitioners implemented the suspension of private respondent.However on March
16, 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Orderenjoining the
Office of the Ombudsman from implementing the suspension order againstprivate
respondent. Thereafter private respondent filed an amended petition impleadingthe
herein petitioners. On May 18, 2000, a resolution was issued granting
privaterespondents prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory
Injunctionagainst the execution of private respondents suspension.In the same
resolution,petitioners were asked to explain why they should not be cited in
contempt of court forfailing to comply with the Temporary Restraining Order dated
March 16, 2000.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Pages 2 to 16 are not shown in this preview.

BUY THE FULL VERSION

Petitioners manifested through an explanation that they could not have complied
with or implemented the TRO since they were not yet parties to the case at the time
of itsissuance and that the same was rendered moot and academic by petitioners
suspensionon March 8, 2000. Herein private respondent is reinstated to his position
pending theappeal as ordered by the CA.In the present recourse, petitioners
contend that the Court of Appeals gravely abusedits discretion in enjoining the
execution of petitioners suspension pending appeal. Thepetitioners also averred
that the stay of execution pending appeal from the order, directiveor decision of the
Office of the Ombudsman violates the equal protection clause for beingunfair to
government employees charged under the Civil Service Law, where the decisionsin
disciplinary cases are immediately executory.Issue: Whether or not the decision of
CA violates the equal protection clause.Ruling:No, the CA did not violate the equal
protection clause. Rule III Section 7 of theProvisionary Rules of the Office of the
Ombudsman states that-Where the respondent isabsolved of the charge and in case
of conviction where the penalty imposed is publiccensure or reprimand, suspension
of not more than one month, or a fine not equivalent toone month salary, the
decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, thedecision shall
become final after the expiration of ten (10) days from receipt thereof by
therespondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari, shall
have beenfiled by him as prescribed in Section 27 of R.A. 6770. This means that
unless the penalty of censure or reprimand or suspension imposed is of not more
than one month or a fine notequivalent to one month salary it shall not be final or
executory. The law gives therespondent the right to appeal. In these cases, the
order, directive or decision becomesfinal and executory only after the lapse of the
period to appeal if no appeal is perfected, orafter the denial of the appeal from the
said order, directive or decision.The penalty imposed on private respondent for
Conduct Prejudicial To The Best Interest of The Service

was six (6) months and one (1) day suspension without pay. Considering that
privaterespondent appealed from the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman, the
stay of execution of the penalty of suspension should therefore issue as a matter of
right. Thus,there is no violation of the equal protection clause. The case is dismissed
and the CA'sresolution is hereby affirmed.Note: the legal maxim
expressio

unius est exclusio alterius

is applied in this case with regards to the application of Sec 27. The express
mention of the things includedexcludes those that are not included. The clear
import of these statements taken togetheris that all other decisions of the Office of
the Ombudsman which impose penalties that arenot enumerated in the said section
27 are not final, unappealable and immediately executory. Courts may not, in the
guise of interpretation, enlarge the scope of a statuteand include therein situations
not provided or intended by the lawmakers.Title: Phil.REC vs. the Secretary,
DILGG.R. No. 143076, June 10, 2003Facts:Petitioner Philippine Rural Electric
Cooperatives Association, Inc. (PHILRECA) is anassociation of 119 electric
cooperatives throughout the country filed a class suit in theirown behalf and in
behalf of other electric cooperatives organized and existing under P.D.No. 269. P.D.
No. 269 aims to promote, encourage and assist all public service entitiesengaged
in supplying electric service, particularly electric cooperatives by giving every
tenable support and assistance to the electric cooperatives coming within the
purview of the law. Accordingly, Section 39 of P.D. No. 269 provides for the following
tax incentives toelectric cooperatives:SECTION 39.Assistance to Cooperatives;
Exemption from Taxes, Imposts, Duties,Fees; Assistance from the National Power
Corporation. Pursuant to the nationalpolicy declared in Section 2, the Congress
hereby finds and declares that thefollowing assistance to cooperative is necessary
and appropriate:(a)Provided that it operates in conformity with the purposes and
provisions of thisDecree, cooperatives (1) shall be permanently exempt from paying
income taxes,and (2) for a period ending on December 31 of the thirtieth full
calendar year after
Activity (2)
FILTERSAdd to collection
1 hundred reads
Ruth Francis Dy Kam liked this
Similar to Case Digest
Tan vs. Bausch & Lomb