Day: June 7, 2018
Florencio Morales, Jr. Vs. Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, et al. G.R. No. 208086. July 27, 2016
Rene A.V. Saguisag, et al. Vs. Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., et al./Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (BAYAN), et al. Vs. Department of National Defense (DND) Secretary Voltaire Gazmin, et al. G.R. No. 212426/G.R. No. 212444. July 26, 2016
Department of Justice represented by Secretary Leila M. De Lima Vs. Judge Rolando G. Mislang, etc./Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), represented by Atty. Jose Roberto F. Po Vs. Judge Rolando G. Mislang, etc. A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369/A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372. July 26, 2016
The application for TRO for the 2nd DOJ case was incorporated in the petition for injunction. However, the DOJ was not given any notice of Lee’s Urgent Motion for ex-parte resolution of his TRO application. And despite the parties’ agreement in court to submit for resolution said petition for injunction only upon submission of their respective memoranda, Judge Mislang granted Lee’s application for TRO without waiting for the DOJ’s memorandum. He never conducted a hearing on either the application for TRO or on the motion for resolution of the TRO. Clearly, this is in violation of the DOJ’s constitutional right to be heard and to due process. Judge Mi slang’s wanton disregard of the DOJ’ s right to due process was repeated when he granted the TRO for the 1st DOJ case. Although the application for TRO was contained in a verified petition, the DOJ was not properly served with a copy of the petition or the urgent motion for hearing. It was not likewise served with any notice of hearing. And notwithstanding the lack of proof of service, Judge Mislang still proceeded to hear the application for TRO against the 1st DOJ case during the hearing on the petition for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against the 2nd DOJ case.
Teresita P. De Guzman, et al. Vs. Commission on Audit, et al. G.R. No. 217999. July 26, 2016
Luz S. Almeda Vs. Office of the Ombudsman and the People of the Philippines G.R. No. 204267. July 25, 2016
People of the Philippines Vs. The Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 199151-56. July 25, 2016
from the time the first Resolution was issued by the Office of the Ombudsman on April 12, 1996, it took more than thirteen (13) years to review and file the Informations on October 6, 2009. Otherwise stated, from the time the complaint was filed on December 28, 1994, it took petitioner almost fifteen (15) years to file the Informations.
In view of the unjustified length of time miring the Office of the Ombudsman’s resolution of the case, as well as the concomitant prejudice that the delay in this case has caused, it is undeniable that respondent’s constitutional right to due process and speedy disposition of cases had been violated.
ISU COL 