Scribd
Upload
51 views12 pages

Ombudsman Violates Right to Speedy Case

Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus against the Office of the Ombudsman to order the dismissal of administrative and criminal cases filed against them. The petitioners argued their right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated as the cases had been pending for over 6 years without resolution. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding the Ombudsman violated their right to a speedy disposition through the vexatious and oppressive delays in resolving the cases over several years. The Court dismissed the cases and found the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Uploaded by

basurasaur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
51 views12 pages

Ombudsman Violates Right to Speedy Case

Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus against the Office of the Ombudsman to order the dismissal of administrative and criminal cases filed against them. The petitioners argued their right to a speedy disposition of cases was violated as the cases had been pending for over 6 years without resolution. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding the Ombudsman violated their right to a speedy disposition through the vexatious and oppressive delays in resolving the cases over several years. The Court dismissed the cases and found the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion.

Uploaded by

basurasaur
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

74902-0 | FEBRUARY 1

OS. 1 5,
. N 200
G.R 8

ALFREDO ENRIQUEZ
VS
OMBUDSMAN
FACTS
On May 9, 2000, the Office of the Ombudsman filed complaints
charging petitioners with administrative and criminal offenses in
connection with the bidding of the Land Titling Computerization
Project of the LRA.

Finding sufficient basis to proceed with the investigation,


respondent required petitioners to submit their counter-affidavits
and controverting evidence.

Petitioner denied the charges and formally offered their evidence


on January 29, 2002.
FACTS
On April 17. 2002, complainant then filed its Comment thereon.
Petitioners waited for respondent’s resolution on the parties’
respective formal offers of evidence, but there was none.

They then filed a Motion to Set Date for the Simultaneous Filing of
Memorandum by Each Party. Respondent did not act on
petitioner’s motion
FACTS
On December 12, 2002, Edilberto Feliciano, one of the petitioners,
filed a Motion for Early Resolution expressing alarm over the
“inaction of the Office of the Ombudsman” and praying that the
cases be resolved immediately considering that all evidences have
been formally offered. Respondent still failed to resolve the case.

Six (6) years from the filing, and more than four (4) years after the
formal submission of evidence, petitioners filed a motion to
dismiss all the cases against them, citing violation of right to due
process and speedy disposition of cases.
FACTS
Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus praying that the Office
of the Ombudsman (respondent) be ordered to dismiss the
administrative and criminal cases against them.
FACTS
Respondent argued that:
(1) it did not violate the Constitutional right to a speedy disposition
of cases;
(2) petitioners cannot resort to mandamus because dismissing the
admin and crim cases involves respondent’s exercise of discretion
(3) it did not act with grave abuse of discretion for failing to resolve
the cases because the ‘prosecutors assigned are merely exercising
extreme care in verifying, evaluating, and assessing the charges’;
(4) the delay in the ongoing review is not vexatious, capricious or
oppressive.
ISSUE
WHETHER RESPONDENT VIOLATED
PETITIONERS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO A SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF THEIR
CASES.
RULING
Yes, respondent violated the right of petitioners to a speedy
disposition of their cases.

All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their


cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies,
so the Constitution declares in no uncertain terms. This right,
like the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated when the
proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and
oppressive delays.
RULING
The rule is that in the determination of whether that right has
been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced
are:

a. length of the delay


b. reasons for the delay
c. aggrieved party’s assertion or failure to assert such right,
d. prejudice caused by the delay
RULING
Further Respondent Ombudsman was Constitutionally created
to protect the people which includes promptly acting on
complaints to promote efficient service by the Government

The Constitution enjoins respondent to ACT PROMPTY on any


complaint against any public officer or employee, it has
concomitant duty to SPEEDILY RESOLVE the same.

Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman requires


that the hearing officer is given a definite period of not later
than 30 days to resolve the case after the formal
investigation shall have been concluded.
RULING
This does not only violate petitioner’s right to speedy
disposition of their cases, but is also opposed to its role as
the vanguard in the promotion of efficient service by the
government to the people and in ensuring accountability in
public office.

Adjudication of cases must not only be done in an orderly


manner, but also be promptly decided to better serve the
ends of justice.

Respondents belated excuse is not only unreasonable but also


an afterthought.
FALLO
WHEREFORE, ADMINISTRATIVE AND CRIMINAL CASES FILED
AGAINT PETITIONERS ARE DISMISSED.

RESPONDENT ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND


ALSO VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY
DISPOSITION OF
CASES.

You might also like