Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COURT OF APPEALS
Cebu City
-oOo-
TWENTIETH DIVISION
MELECIO J. YAP, JR. ,
City Mayor of Escalante, Negros
Occidental, WILFREDO E. RUIZ
ROY D. CARALDE &
ARNULFA R. DONOSO
Petitioners,
SUPPLEMENTAL PLEADING
(Third)
Petitioners, by counsel, unto this Honorable Court of Appeals, most
respectfully submit their (third) supplemental to the Petition and state that:
The grounds for the issuance of a preliminary injunction are
enumerated in Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
Sec. 3. Grounds for issuance of preliminary
injunction. A preliminary injunction may be granted
when it is established:
(a) That the applicant is entitled to the relief
demanded, and the whole or part of such relief
consists in restraining the commission or
continuance of the act or acts complained of, or
in requiring the performance of an act or acts, either
for a limited period or perpetually;
Page 1 of 12
(b) That the commission, continuance or nonperformance of the act or acts complained of during
the litigation would probably work injustice to the
applicant; or
(c) That a party, court, agency or a person is
doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is
procuring or suffering to be done, some act or acts
probably in violation of the rights of the applicant
respecting the subject of the action or proceeding,
and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.
Page 4 of 12
City
City
OF
and
(Exhibit R-4)
Subsequent discussion by the complainants also clearly
shows that Melecio Yap, Jr. was never their subject in the
said position paper.
They started their position paper not impleading Petitioner
Melecio Yap, Jr., they ended it just the same when their
prayer states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered it is most
respectfully prayed of this Honorable Office that
Respondents City Budget Office, OIC City
Accountant and City Treasurer be placed in
administrative suspension while the investigation is
going on and disciplinary action of dismissal from
service be adjudged against them
(Exhibit R-5).
On the last page of the position paper is a handwritten proof
of mailing indicating that complainants furnished copy of
said position paper to Mr. Wilfredo Ruiz, et. al. through
registered mail in September 26, 2010, Registry Receipt No.
341 mailed at the Escalante Postal Office, (Exhibit R-6).
Page 5 of 12
All told, the finale pleadings filed by the Complainants and the
Order of the Ombudsman-Visayas for the first and second cases
makes distinction as to the Respondents of the two (2) complaints
filed, one, in November 27, 2009 and second, in December 10, 2009.
For the November 27, 2009 complaint (first), the respondent
was just Melecio Yap, Jr. while the December 10, 2009 complaint
(second), the respondent were Ruiz, Caralde and Donoso. These were
never changed.
Up to the last point, the complainants were consistent that for
OMB-V-C-09-0454-L and OMB-V-A-09-0444-L, their Respondents
were just Ruiz, Caralde and Donoso while for OMB-V-A-09-0408,
their Respondent was only Melecio Yap, Jr.
After the rejoinder filed by the complainants, nothing was heard
of them. Meaning, up to the time when they rested their case, all in
their minds are that for the first complaint, their Respondent was only
Melecio Yap, Jr., while in the second complaint their Respondents
were Ruiz, Caralde and Donoso.
This agrees with the view of Petitioner Yap that he is never a
party Respondent to OMB-V-A-09-0444-L to which he was penalized
a suspension for three (3) months.
In the subject Decision (for OMB-V-A-09-0444-L) however, it
appears that there was a Joint Evaluation Report dated 21 January
2010 wherein the Ombudsman (Visayas) recommended that Petitioner
Melecio Yap, Jr. be impleaded as a Respondent along with Ruiz,
Caralde and Donoso (page 5, Exhibit H, rollo). However, there is no
showing that Petitioner Melecio Yap, Jr. received the said Joint
Evaluation Report and he was subsequently notified that he was now a
Respondent to the OMB-V-A-09-0444-L.
If this was true, then why is there a latter Order dated October
13, 2010 (please see Exhibit T) for OMB-V-C-09-0454-L and
Page 7 of 12
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully
prayed of this Honorable Court as follows;
1. The additional arguments and the submission of Exhibits R ,
T, U, V & W with sub-markings be noted;
Page 10 of 12
Copy furnished:
HON. CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
Office of the Ombudsman
Ombudsman Building, Government Center
Page 11 of 12
__________________
Date: ______________
__________________
___________________
Date: ______________
Date: _______________
EXPLANATION
Copy of the foregoing Supplemental was furnished to the parties by
registered mail due to distance making personal service very difficult if not
impractical.
ARIEL I. MALUNES
Page 12 of 12