Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Respectfully submitted is the Daily Journal of Panyerong Pulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7 from 12
2000H to 13 0800H June 2016, Case Digest, and OD Report as Duty Legal Adviser.
12 2000H to 13 0800H June 2016
NO.
1.
TIME
12
June
ACTION TAKEN
Call AC, LAD, email Command
Group
2000H
2.
2400H
Continue monitoring.
3.
0200H
Continue monitoring.
4.
0400H
Negative query.
13
5.
June
0800H
2) List the members of the guard present and absent at the area during the time of
inspection.
PRESENT
ABSENT
None
time
of inspection.
PRESENT
ABSENT
None
c. LS Parking Space
Time of inspection 02000H, Name of posted guard PO3 Garry V Viernes.
d. LS Library/Records Section
Time of inspections 02000H, Name of posted guard PO3 Garry V Viernes.
3. I stayed at Panyerong Pulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7 to supervise the strict implementation and
enforcement of security procedures from 12 02000H - 13 0800H June 2016
4. I supervised the strict implementation of energy conservation policy and ensured that
all lights and air-conditioned units at LS building are being PUT-OFF at about 02000H.
e. The cash shortage in the amount of Php 379,646,51 under SEF and Trust
Fund as well as the disallowed amount of Php 585,803.37 has no basis as
the same pertained to the previous audit, and thus, could have been excluded
from the computation of the total shortage;
f. The cash amounting to Php 883,952,91 in the form of reimbursement
expense receipts should not have been disallowed because they were
actually received by individual payees;
g. The petitioners cash on hand accountability was overstated because a
collection was not immediately recorded; and
h. The audit team erroneously credited petitioners accounts to another cashier.
On November 8, 2004, the dismissal of the petitioner due to the aforementioned
discrepancy was approved by Deputy Ombudsman Victor Fernandez. The decision
specifically took notice of the petitioners failure to file counter-affidavit and position
paper despite notice.
On November 29, 2004, petitioner filed an urgent motion saying that she filed the
necessary pleading and that the defenses therein alleged be considered in reversing
the OMBs decision.
On January 31, 2005, treating the petitioners motion as a Motion for
Reconsideration, Deputy Ombudsman Fernandez denied the same, citing the absence
of exculpatory statements to contradict the OMBs findings that she misappropriated
public funds.
Petitioner sough reconsideration based on newly discovered evidence and grave
errors on facts and law including a pending request for reconsideration of the audit
report before the office of the audit team. On March 22, 2005, it was denied by Deputy
Ombudsman Fernandez.
The petitioner elevated the matter before the Court of Appeals via a Petition for
Review on the alleged violation of due process including the absence of a formal
hearing. The CA denied the petition, finding that she is not entitled to a formal
investigation; hence the action before the Supreme Court to reverse the CA decision.
The issues for consideration are:
a. Whether the petitioner was deprived of her right to due process;
b. Whether the penalty of dismissal is proper; and
c. Whether the petitioners guilt of grave misconduct and dishonesty is
supported by substantial evidence.
The petitioner stated under Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Title I, Subtitle
48(2), and (3), she is entitled to formal investigation. On the other hand, COA relied on
Administrative Order No. 7, as amended by Administrative Order No. 17, Rule III,
Section 5, as the rule applicable on cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman.
Ruling:
The SC opined that Administrative Order No. 7, as amended by Administrative
Order No. 17, Rule III, Section 5, governs the procedure before the Office of the
Ombudsman. It was issued pursuant to the authority vested with the OMB under RA
6770, the Ombudsman Act of 1989.
On the other hand the Administrative Code of 1987, cited by the respondent
applies only on cases filed before the Civil Service Commission. As the case was filed
before the OMB, the Deputy Ombudsman applied the Rules of Procedure of the OMB.
The latter rule states that a formal investigation is a prerogative that rests on the hearing
officer and not with the petitioner.
xxx Thus, as between the Administrative Code of 1987 and Administrative Order
No. 7, as amended, issued by the Office of the Ombudsman, the latter governs in this
case which involves an administrative complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman
and which raises the question of whether petitioner is entitled to a formal investigation
as a matter of right xxxx
Dear Sir,
Respectfully submitted is the Daily Journal of Panyerong Pulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7 from 12
0800H to 12 2000H June 2016, Case Digest, and OD Report as Duty Legal Adviser.
NO.
TIME
ACTION TAKEN
1.
12
June
0800H
2.
1200H
Continue monitoring.
3.
1700H
Continue monitoring.
4.
Negative query.
12
5.
June
2000H
PRESENT
ABSENT
None
time
of inspection.
PRESENT
ABSENT
None
c. LS Parking Space
Time of inspection 0830H, Name of posted guard PO3 Garry V Viernes.
d. LS Library/Records Section
Time of inspections 1100H, Name of posted guard PO3 Garry V Viernes.
3. I stayed at Panyerong Pulis @ Ur Serbis 24/7 to supervise the strict implementation and
enforcement of security procedures from 12 0800H - 12 2000H June 2016
4. I supervised the strict implementation of energy conservation policy and ensured that
all lights and air-conditioned units at LS building are being PUT-OFF at about 1800H.
5. Comments and observation. (Include significant events and matters involving LS
building security and cleanliness, the proper uniform and equipment of sentinels on duty and
their efficiency.
(Negative for the period)
Case Digest (June 12, 2016 8AM-8PM- APO Cement Corp vs. Mingson Mining
re Administrative Due Process)
In an Order dated March 1, 1995, the DENR Regional Office decreed that portions of
the subject mining claims be awarded to Mingson, considering that said claims have
encroached its Yellow Eagle I to VII claims.
However, upon Apocemcos motion for reconsideration, the DENR Regional Offices
Legal Division issued a Resolution dated September 5, 1995, recommending that the
subject mining claims be awarded, instead, to Apocemco, subject, however, to the
outcome of Luvimins appeal. In an Order dated September 20, 1995, the DENR
Regional Director affirmed the foregoing resolution, but subject tothe review and
concurrence of the Mines and Geosciences Bureau Region 7 - Panel of Arbitrators
(POA), considering that pursuant to Section 218 of DENR Department Administrative
Order No. (DAO) 95-23, Series of 1995, the POA has been mandated to resolve, among
others, disputes involving rights to mining areas.
In a Decision dated May 3, 1996, the POA upheld the September 5, 1995 Resolution
and the September 20, 1995 Order, reiterating the findings therein made, without,
however, requiring the parties to file any pleading or setting the matter for hearing.
Aggrieved, Mingson appealed the POAs Decision before the DENR MAB, averring that
the said Decision was not supported by facts and the evidence on record, and that it
was arbitrary and issued with grave abuse of authority. Subsequently, in Mingsons
letter dated August 8, 1996, it claimed denial of due process.
In a Decision dated July 31, 2007, the DENR MAB granted Mingsons appeal and
thereby reversed and set aside the POAs Decision. It found that the POA merely
conducted a review of the case and Mingson, in particular, was not given an opportunity
to be heard, which is repugnant to due process.
Dissatisfied, Apocemco elevated the matter to the CA.
In a Decision dated June 13, 2012, the CA dismissed Apocemcos appeal and sustained
the DENR MABs finding that Mingson was not afforded by the POA its right to due
process, given that none of the applicable procedures found in DENR DAO 95-23 were
followed. As an added ground for dismissal, the CA heldthat Apocemco failed to perfect
its appeal in accordance with the Rules ofCourt, considering that the DENR MAB was
not served a copy of its petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The primordial issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly ordered the
dismissal of Apocemcos appeal.
"[a]decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at
anytime directly or collaterally by means of a separate action, or by resisting such
decision in any action or proceeding where it is invoked." The Court sees no defensible
reason as to why this principle should not be herein applied.
That being said, and considering too Apocemcos failure to comply with Sections 5 and
7, Rule 43 of the Rules of Court in the proceedings before the appellate court, the
instant petition is hereby denied and the rulings of the CA are affirmed.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 13, 2012 and the
Resolution dated April 23, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 100456 are
hereby AFFIRMED.
Digested by:
PSI Camilo N Danao Jr.
Duty Legal Adviser, Panyerong Pulis @ Ur serbis 24/7