100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 70 - 74 out of 136 pages.
7. a. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN vs. MAXIMOD. SISONG.R. No. 185954; February 16, 2010; VELASCO,JR, J.:DOCTRINE:The (dis)allowance of a Motion toIntervene depends on the discretion of the court (Rule19 of the Rules of Court).To warrant an intervention: 1) the intervenor musthave a legal interest in the matter in litigation; and, 2)the intervention must not unduly delay or prejudicethe adjudication of the rights of the persons alreadyparties to the case.The legal interest contemplated must be one whichwill be directly and immediately affected by thejudgment of the case; on the other hand, anintervention shall be deemed an undue delay of theproceedings if the claim of the intervenor is one whichis capable of being properly decided in a separateproceeding.If a government party shall intervene in an appeal, itmust be the one which prosecutes the administrativecase and not the one which has decided the case.Other Matters on the SyllabusComparing with the De Chavez case, here theOmbudsman intervened in an appeal from the decisionwhich it decided while in the former, the Ombudsmanintervened in an appeal from the decision of the RTCwhich decided the case.72
Comparing with the De Chavez case, here the appealstemmed from a decision or order which completelydisposes 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 SamarMovement filed a letter-complaint with the Office ofthe Ombudsman informing the latter of a well-foundedjoint audit investigation conducted by the Special AuditTeam composed of the members of the Legal andAdjudication Office and of the Commission on Auditwhich yielded anomalies on the expenditure of thecalamity fund; t hus, the Ombudsman proceeded withan administrative case against the impleadedprovincial officials of Samar.One of the said officials is Maximo D. Sison, and in hiscounter-affidavit, and later on in his Position Paper, hedenied the accusations claiming innocence on thecharges. The Ombudsman found that Sison severalother local officials are guilty of grave misconduct,dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interestof the service and dismissing him from service.On a petition for review (under Rule 43), the CAreversed and set aside the Ombudsman decision forinsufficiency of evidence absolving Sison from theadministrative liability as charged. On the course ofthe appeal, the Ombudsman filed an Omnibus Motionfor Intervention and to Admit Attached Motion forReconsideration. The motion was denied.ISSUE: W/N the Ombudsman may intervene in theappeal on the grounds that it has sufficient legalinterest warranting a right to intervene.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 136 pages?
Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, preliminary attachment