Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 83 views

    OMB v. Evangelista

    Uploaded by

    Ron Decin
    While a preventive suspension order may stem from a complainant, the Ombudsman is not required to furnish the respondent with a copy of the complainant prior to ordering preventive suspension.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    OMB v. Evangelista

    Uploaded by

    Ron Decin
    83 views1 page
    While a preventive suspension order may stem from a complainant, the Ombudsman is not required to furnish the respondent with a copy of the complainant prior to ordering preventive suspension.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    While a preventive suspension order may stem from a complainant, the Ombudsman is not required to furnish the respondent with a copy of the complainant prior to ordering preventive suspension.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    83 views1 page

    OMB v. Evangelista

    Uploaded by

    Ron Decin
    While a preventive suspension order may stem from a complainant, the Ombudsman is not required to furnish the respondent with a copy of the complainant prior to ordering preventive suspension.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    OMB v.

    Evangelista | 581 SCRA 350


    FACTS: Priscila Villanueva, co-chair of the Local School Board (LSB) of Aguirre, Pangasinan, filed an
    administrative case with the Ombudsman against Mayor Evangelista, municipal treasurer Melican, and
    municipal accountant Limos. She alleged that the three made use of the Special Education Fund (SEF) to
    purchase speech kits and textbooks without the authorization of the LSB and that the said speech kits and
    textbooks were not even received by the recipient schools. Villanueva also prayed for the preventive suspension
    of the three. Without furnishing the respondents with a copy of the complaint, the Ombudsman issued an Order
    preventively suspending them for four (4) months, without pay.
    The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the
    preventive suspension order by the Ombudsman on the following grounds: (1) the Order was issued without
    compliance with Sec. 26 of the Ombudsman Act which requires that the respondents be informed of the charges
    against them; (2) there was haste in the issuance of the Order since the Ombudsman did not await the
    recommendation of his deputy. Thus, the Ombudsman filed a Rule 65 certiorari with the Supreme Court.
    ISSUE: Whether a preventive suspension order may issue even without notifying the respondent in an
    administrative case of the charge/s against him
    RULING: Yes. The appellate court strangely juxtaposed the requisites found in Section 26 of R.A. No. 6770
    governing inquiries by the Ombudsman with those found in Section 24 of the same law. Section 24 does not
    require that notice of the charges against the accused must precede an order meting out preventive suspension.
    While a preventive suspension order may stem from a complaint, the Ombudsman is not required to furnish the
    respondent with a copy of the complaint prior to ordering preventive suspension. The requisites for the
    Ombudsman to issue a preventive suspension order are clearly contained in Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770. The
    appellate court cannot alter these requirements by insisting that the preventive suspension order also meet the
    requisites found in Section 26 of the same law.

    You might also like