MANOLO FULE VS CA action already prescribed and that the Ombudsman has

FACTS: Manolo Fule was convicted of the violation of BP 22 or recommendatory powers only.
the Bouncing Check Law. Fule waived his right to present ISSUES:
evidence and submitted a memorandum confirming the 1. WON RA 6770 prohibits the investigations in cases
stipulation of facts. However, the stipulation of facts was not filed more than one year after commission
signed by the petitioner nor his counsel. Despite of this, the 2. WON the power of the Ombudsman is
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals upheld the recommendatory only
stipulation of facts and sentenced Fule. HELD:
ISSUE: WON the stipulation of facts should be signed? 1. NO. The Court pointed out that administrative
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court pointed out the Rules of Court offenses do not prescribe. Although the law uses the
provided that the stipulation of facts must be signed. The phrase may not, it is not mandatory because it is
Rules of Court stated that no agreement or admission during not supported by jurisprudence on statutory
the pre-trial conference shall be used in evidence unless construction.
reduced to writing and signed by the petitioner or counsel. 2. NO. The Constitution vested on the Ombudsman to
Negative words are used by the Rules of Court and according directly remove from government service an erring
to the rules of statutory construction, the use of negative public official except those who are in the Congress
words should be regarded as mandatory. Thus, the stipulation and the Judiciary.
of facts must be signed to be admissible.
LOYOLA GRAND VILLAS VS COURT OF APPEALS
PURITA BERSABAL VS HON JUDGE SERFIN SALVADOR FACTS:
FACTS: An ejectment case was filed and ruled against the ISSUE:
petitioner. Thus, she decided to appeal the case in the HELD:
respondents court. The respondent court ordered the
originating court to transmit a copy of the stenographic notes
within 15 days and the parties to file their respective
memoranda within 30 days. The petitioner filed a motion that
her party would file their memorandum within 30 days upon
receipt of the stenographic notes. The respondent court
granted the motion. However, the respondent court
dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner failed
to submit her memorandum within the period provided by
the respondent court. Petitioner argued that she had not yet
received a copy of the stenographic notes. Thus, she filed the
instant petition.
ISSUE: WON the respondent court can dismiss the case on
the mere failure of the petitioner to file her memorandum
HELD: NO. RA 296 states that the parties may submit
memoranda if requested. With the use of the word may,
the party has an option not to submit the needed
memorandum since the word is not mandatory but rather,
discretionary. However, the Court pointed out that the
respondent court should not dismiss the appeal due to the
failure of the petitioner to submit a memorandum but dismiss
the petition based on facts available to it. Thus, the Court set
aside the decision of the respondent court and ordered it to
decide the case base on the merits of the case.

OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN VS DE SAHAGUN

FACTS: The respondents are members of the Bids and Awards
Committee of the marketing support services for Intramuros.
An anonymous complaint to the Ombudsman alleged that the
said committee entered contracts with Brand Asia Ltd
without undergoing the proper process of bidding. The Fact-
Finding Intelligence Bureau filed criminal and administrative
charges against them but the Graft Investigating Officer
recommended to drop the charges. However, the
Ombudsman disapproved the recommendation since there
was substantial evidence. The respondents argued that the