Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DAPITAN CITY
Represented by Rosalina Garcia Jalosjos
Complainant,
Docket No.: OMB-M-A-17-0594
-versus- For: Grave Misconduct; Gross
Neglect Of Duty
ROBERTO Y. UY
Provincial Governor
Office of the Provincial Governor
Capitol Bldg., Dipolog City
Zamboanga del Norte
MARVIN D. PANGILINAN
Area Engineer
THE PARTIES
The complainant DAPITAN CITY (hereinafter referred to as
”complainant" for brevity), is a local government unit represented by
City Mayor Rosalina G. Jalosjos;
STATEMENT OF FACTS
ISSUES
8. Respondent presents the main issues to be resolved before
this Honorable Office of the Ombudsman, i.e.:
I.
II.
III.
Whether or not complainant committed forum-shopping by filing
the present charges against respondents;
ARGUMENTS/DISCUSSION
1
Vertudes v. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 153166, December 16, 2005, 478 SCRA 210, 233.
2
Id. at 233-234.
Flagrant disregard of rules is a ground that jurisprudence has already
touched upon. It has been demonstrated, among others, in the instances when
there had been open defiance of a customary rule;3 in the repeated voluntary
disregard of established rules in the procurement of supplies;4 in the practice
of illegally collecting fees more than what is prescribed for delayed registration
of marriages;5 when several violations or disregard of regulations governing
the collection of government funds were committed;6 and when the employee
arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly beyond her given
duties.7 The common denominator in these cases was the employees
propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his or her
actions."8
3
Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr., G.R. No. 169449, March 26, 2010, 616 SCRA 586, 592.
4
Roque v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179245, July 23, 2008, 559 SCRA 660, 674.
5
Bulalat v. Adil, A.M. No. SCC-05-10-P, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA 44, 49.
6
Valera v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 167278, February 27, 2008, 547 SCRA 42, 64.
7
Re: Letter of Judge Lorenza Bordios Paculdo, MTC, Branch 1, San Pedro, Laguna, A.M. No. P-07-2346,
February 18, 2008, 546 SCRA 13, 21.
8
Monico K. Imperial, Jr. vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 191224, October 4, 2011.
9
Brucal v. Desierto, G.R. No. 152188, 8 July 2005, 463 SCRA 151, 166.
10
Id.
11
Id.
acted when they prevented the personnel of the Provincial
Engineering Office from carrying on with their tasks;
xxx
RECOMMENDATION:
xxx
"2. The LGU-Dapitan City, through this Office will request the
Mines and Geosciences Bureau, Regional Office IX, to DEPUTIZE
City ENRO personnel and certain Barangay Officials in relation to
quarry operations so this office can legally enforce pertinent laws
on mineral and sand and gravel operations." (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
18.1 That attention must also be brought to the fact that the
subject Resolution was passed with the attendance of Joselito C.
Paradiang, and concurred by Ronilo Bulay-og Dawat, Meredion
Baid Sapalleda, Fe Chona Zason, Gemma Eguia Anghog, Genelyn
Jaralve Sasuman, and Genavie Del Rio Laab, all Sangguniang
Bayan members, who incidentally happens to be the supposed
witnesses of the complainant. In fact, attached to the Complaint
are their Affidavits marked as Annex "K", Annex “K-1”, and
Annex “K-2”, respectively, wherein they pronounced that
damage and injury was caused because of the illegal quarry of
aggregates by the Provincial Government and/or Provincial
Engineering Office. Their completely contradicting stand on this
matter unavoidably casts doubt as to their credibility and incites
suspicion as to their true motives and intentions along with the
complainant in filing the present charges against respondent;
xxx
For res judicata under the first concept, bar by prior judgment, to
apply, the following requisites must concur, viz: (a) finality of the
former judgment; (b) the court which rendered it had jurisdiction
over the subject matter and the parties; (c) it must be a judgment
on the merits; and (d) there must be, between the first and second
actions, identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action.12
(underscoring supplied)
12
Spouses Mario Ocampo and Carmelita F. Ocampo vs. Heirs of Bernardino U. Dionisio represented by
Artemio SJ. Dionisio, G.R. No. 191101 dated October 1, 2014.
13
Mendiola v. CA, 327 Phil. 1164,1165 (1996).
14
G.R. No. 122202, May 26, 2005, 459 SCRA 27, 38-39.
15
Lanuza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 131394, March 28, 2005, 454 SCRA 54.
M-C-17-0225 has the same subject matter and cause of action as
the present complaint, that is, the alleged illegal quarrying of sand
and gravel supposedly committed by the Provincial Engineering
Office with the knowledge of the OIC-Provincial Environment
and Management Office, Mr. Levy H. Lagutin, Jr. and the
Provincial Governor, Roberto Y. Uy. In fact, the allegations
contained in the present complaint are basically a mere rehash of
those submitted by complainant in the previous case;
16
DIino A. Crucillo vs. Office of the Ombudsman and the Presidential Commission on Good Government,
G.R. No. 159876 , June 26, 2007, Jose R. Tengco, Jr. vs. Hon. Simeon V. Marcelo in his capacity as the
Ombudsman and the Presidential Commission on Good Government G.R. No. 159877, June 26, 2007.
17
G.R. No. L-21607, January 30, 1970, 31 SCRA 126, citing cases.
18
Heirs of Igmedio Maglaque and Sabina Payawal et. Al. vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Planters Development
Bank and Angel Beltran and Estate of Erlinda C. Beltran, G.R. No. 163360, June 8, 2007.
present charges against
respondents;
19
Spouses Silvestre O. Plaza and Elena Y. Plaza vs. Guillermo Lustiva et al.; G.R. No. 1172909; March
5, 2014
Respondent Uy prays for such other reliefs and remedies just
and equitable under the premises.
By: