Scribd
Upload
645 views

ALBA Vdigest

The Supreme Court upheld the 30-day suspension without pay imposed on Dr. Ramon Alba by the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court found that: 1) Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act allows suspensions of up to one month to be final and unappealable. 2) Administrative rules also state that suspensions of one month or less cannot be appealed. 3) Alba was given the opportunity to be heard through pleadings, satisfying due process. 4) The Ombudsman's findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or an abuse of power.

Uploaded by

Opal P Manaog
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
645 views

ALBA Vdigest

The Supreme Court upheld the 30-day suspension without pay imposed on Dr. Ramon Alba by the Office of the Ombudsman. The Court found that: 1) Section 27 of the Ombudsman Act allows suspensions of up to one month to be final and unappealable. 2) Administrative rules also state that suspensions of one month or less cannot be appealed. 3) Alba was given the opportunity to be heard through pleadings, satisfying due process. 4) The Ombudsman's findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not arbitrary or an abuse of power.

Uploaded by

Opal P Manaog
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

1

ALBA vs. NITORREDA G.R. No. 120223, March 13, 1996 DOCTRINE: The right to appeal is not a natural right nor a part of due process; it is merely a statutory privilege. Due process may be satisfied notwithstanding the denial of the right to appeal for the essence of due process is simply the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in support of one's case. FACTS: Dr. Ramon Y. Alba in his capacity as Director III of the Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS) was charged with violating certain provisions of the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards For Public Officials and Employees (R.A. 6713). For such gross misconduct, petitioner was meted a suspension of thirty (30) days without pay, after he was given all opportunity to be heard, albeit through pleadings. When petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the foregoing resolution was denied by the Ombudsman, he filed an "Appeal Petition for Certiorari ..." with the Supreme Court. HELD: (A) YES. The thirty (30)-day suspension of Petitioner, without pay and "unappealable", imposed by respondent DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, Cesar E. Nitorreda, was in accordance with a valid or constitutional law/legislation. Section 27 of R.A. 6770 (otherwise known as the "Ombudsman Act of 1989") states that: ...Findings of fact by the Office of the Ombudsman when supported by substantial evidence are conclusive. Any order, directive or decision imposing the penalty of public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month's salary (sic) shall be final and unappealable. Section 7, Rule III, of Administrative Order No. 07, dated April 10, 1990 (otherwise known as the "RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN" . . .), states that: Sec. 7. Finality of decision. Where the respondent is absolved of the charged (sic) and in case of conviction where the penalty imposed is public censure or reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine equivalent to one 1 month salary, the decision shall be final and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision shall become final after the expiration of ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the respondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition for certiorari shall have been filed by him as prescribed in Section 27 of RA 6770.

ISSUES: Whether or not the thirty (30)-day suspension of Petitioner, without pay and "unappealable", imposed by respondent DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, Cesar E. Nitorreda, was: (A) in accordance with a valid or constitutional law/legislation, (B) in accordance with due process, (C) supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary, whimsical and a grave abuse of discretion or authority on the part of said Nitorreda.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS Compliance with one of the requisites of judicial due process that jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy