0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)
678 visualizzazioni1 pagina
1) Secretary Datumanong issued a memorandum order dismissing the petitioner from service while the petitioner's appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court.
2) The Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Datumanong's actions did not constitute contempt of court as there was no evidence of willfulness, bad faith, or deliberate intent to cause injustice.
3) At most, the memorandum order could be considered an error in judgment or result of confusion due to different rules regarding execution of decisions pending appeal. The petitioner's remedy was to appeal the error, not initiate contempt proceedings.
Descrizione originale:
Contempt of Hon. Datumanong Realino
Titolo originale
02. in the Matter to Declare in Contempt Hon. Dumatong Realino
1) Secretary Datumanong issued a memorandum order dismissing the petitioner from service while the petitioner's appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court.
2) The Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Datumanong's actions did not constitute contempt of court as there was no evidence of willfulness, bad faith, or deliberate intent to cause injustice.
3) At most, the memorandum order could be considered an error in judgment or result of confusion due to different rules regarding execution of decisions pending appeal. The petitioner's remedy was to appeal the error, not initiate contempt proceedings.
1) Secretary Datumanong issued a memorandum order dismissing the petitioner from service while the petitioner's appeal was still pending before the Supreme Court.
2) The Supreme Court ruled that Secretary Datumanong's actions did not constitute contempt of court as there was no evidence of willfulness, bad faith, or deliberate intent to cause injustice.
3) At most, the memorandum order could be considered an error in judgment or result of confusion due to different rules regarding execution of decisions pending appeal. The petitioner's remedy was to appeal the error, not initiate contempt proceedings.
NO. The issuance of the Memorandum Order by Secretary capacity as Secretary of the Department of Public Works Datumanong was not a contumacious conduct tending, directly or and Highways. JIMMIE F. TEL-EQUEN indirectly, to impede, obstruct or degrade the administration of G.R. No. 150274 justice. A conduct, to be contumacious, implies willfulness, bad August 4, 2006 faith or with deliberate intent to cause injustice, which is not so in the case at bar. DOCTRINE: Applicability to pending actions; retroactivity At most, it may be considered only an error of judgment or a FACTS: result of confusion considering the different rules regarding - The Ombudsman Task Force on Public Works and Highways execution of decisions pending appeal. filed with the Office of the Ombudsman an administrative complaint for dishonesty, falsification of official documents, The remedy of the petitioner is not to file a petition to cite him in grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, violation of office rules contempt of court but to elevate the error to the higher court for and regulations, and conduct prejudicial to the service against review and correction. However, two events supervened since petitioner Tel-Equen and several others, relative to the the filing of this petition that would support its dismissal. First, on anomalous payment of P553,900.00 of the bailey bridge March 28, 2005, the Court in G.R. No. 144694 affirmed the components owned by the govt. decisions of the Court of Appeals and Administrative Adjudication - Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the Office of the Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman ordering petitioner Ombudsman found respondents guilty dismissed from the service for dishonesty, falsification of public - On March 2, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed with documents, misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best modification and two co-accused guilty as charged and interest of the service. Second, Section 7, Rule III of the Rules of dismissed them from the service Petitioner, together with his Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman was amended by two co-accused, appealed from the decision to the SC. Administrative Order No. 17 wherein the pertinent provision on - While appeal was still pending, Secretary Datumanong issued the execution of decisions pending appeal is now essentially the assailed Memorandum Order dismissing the petitioners similar to Section 47 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases from service. in the Civil Service thus: - Hence, the instant petition to cite Secretary Datumanong in An appeal shall not stop the decision from being contempt of court. Petitioner contends that in issuing the executory. In case the penalty is suspension or removal Memorandum Order despite knowledge of the pendency of and the respondent wins such appeal, he shall be G.R. No. 144694, Secretary Datumanong committed a considered as having been under preventive suspension contumacious act, a gross and blatant display of abuse of and shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments discretion and an unlawful interference with the proceedings that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or before the Court. removal. - Under A.O. No. 07 dated 10 April 1990 particularly Sec. 7 thereof, except when the penalty is public censure or Well-settled is the rule that procedural laws are construed reprimand, suspension of not more than one month, or a fine to be applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time not equivalent to one month salary, the decision shall be final of their passage, and are deemed retroactive in that sense and to and unappealable. In all other cases, the decision shall become that extent. final after the expiration of ten (10) days from receipt thereof by the respondent, unless a motion for reconsideration or petition As a general rule, the retroactive application of procedural for certiorari, shall have been filed by him as prescribed in laws cannot be considered violative of any personal rights Section 27 of R.A. 6770. because no vested right may attach to nor arise therefrom. In the It is clear from the above provision that the punishment case at bar, the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the imposed upon petitioner is not among those listed as final Ombudsman are clearly procedural and no vested right of the and unappealable An appeal timely filed, such as the one petitioner is violated as he is considered preventively suspended filed in the instant case, will stay the immediate while his case is on appeal. Moreover, in the event he wins on implementation of the decision. appeal, he shall be paid the salary and such other emoluments that he did not receive by reason of the suspension or removal. ISSUE: Besides, there is no such thing as a vested interest in an office, or even an absolute right to hold office. Excepting constitutional W/N Sec. Datumanong should be cited for contempt of court offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in an office.