70 71 7 a OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs MAXIMO D SISON GR No 185954 February 16

70 71 7 a office of the ombudsman vs maximo d sison

This preview shows page 70 - 74 out of 136 pages.

70
Image of page 70
71
Image of page 71
7. a. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. MAXIMO D. SISON G.R. No. 185954; February 16, 2010; VELASCO, JR, J.: DOCTRINE: The (dis)allowance of a Motion to Intervene depends on the discretion of the court (Rule 19 of the Rules of Court). To warrant an intervention: 1) the intervenor must have a legal interest in the matter in litigation; and, 2) the intervention must not unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the persons already parties to the case. The legal interest contemplated must be one which will be directly and immediately affected by the judgment of the case; on the other hand, an intervention shall be deemed an undue delay of the proceedings if the claim of the intervenor is one which is capable of being properly decided in a separate proceeding. If a government party shall intervene in an appeal, it must be the one which prosecutes the administrative case and not the one which has decided the case. Other Matters on the Syllabus Comparing with the De Chavez case, here the Ombudsman intervened in an appeal from the decision which it decided while in the former, the Ombudsman intervened in an appeal from the decision of the RTC which decided the case. 72
Image of page 72
Comparing with the De Chavez case, here the appeal stemmed from a decision or order which completely disposes of the case on the merits while in the former, the appeal stemmed from a mere interlocutory order (issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction). FACTS: The members of the Isog Han Samar Movement filed a letter-complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman informing the latter of a well-founded joint audit investigation conducted by the Special Audit Team composed of the members of the Legal and Adjudication Office and of the Commission on Audit which yielded anomalies on the expenditure of the calamity fund; t hus, the Ombudsman proceeded with an administrative case against the impleaded provincial officials of Samar. One of the said officials is Maximo D. Sison, and in his counter-affidavit, and later on in his Position Paper, he denied the accusations claiming innocence on the charges. The Ombudsman found that Sison several other local officials are guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and dismissing him from service. On a petition for review (under Rule 43), the CA reversed and set aside the Ombudsman decision for insufficiency of evidence absolving Sison from the administrative liability as charged. On the course of the appeal, the Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motion for Intervention and to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration. The motion was denied. ISSUE: W/N the Ombudsman may intervene in the appeal on the grounds that it has sufficient legal interest warranting a right to intervene.
Image of page 73
Image of page 74

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 136 pages?

  • Winter '19
  • Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, preliminary attachment

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture