SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com

Endnotes:


1 Rollo, pp. 176-188. This was filed with the Court on November 18, 1998, and signed by Solicitor General Ricardo P. Galvez, Assistant Solicitor General Mariano M. Martinez and Solicitor Fay L. Garcia.

2 Memorandum of public respondents, pp. 2-6; rollo, pp. 177-181.

3 Rollo, p. 173.

4 The case was deemed submitted for resolution on January 26, 1999, when the Court received a copy of the Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General.

5 Memorandum for the petitioners, pp. 1-11; rollo pp. 138-148.

6 Memorandum for the petitioners, p. 4; rollo, p. 141.

7 Angchangco Jr. v. Ombudsman, 268 SCRA 301, 306, February 17, 1997, per Melo, J.

8 First Philippine Holdings Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, 253 SCRA 30, February 1, 1996, per Panganiban, J.

9 156 SCRA 222, December 7, 1987, per Melencio-Herrera, J.

10 Supra.

11 See also D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Esguerra, 260 SCRA 74, July 30, 1996.

12 The Ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and shall, in appropriate cases, notify the complainants of the action taken and the results thereof. (Section 12, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution)

13 The ombudsman and his deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against officers or employees of the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, and enforce their administrative, civil and criminal liability in every case where the evidence warrants in order to promote efficient service by the government to the people. (Section 13, Republic Act No. 6770)

14 Respondents Memorandum, p. 11; rollo, p. 186.

15 Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, 268 SCRA 301, 304, February 17, 1997, per Melo, J.

16 159 SCRA 70, 82, March 21, 1988, per Yap, J.

17 Ibid., p. 83.

18 SEC. 4. How proceeding commenced. Proceedings for indirect contempt may be initiated motu propio by the court against which the contempt was committed by an order or any other formal charge requiring the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt.

In all other cases, charges for indirect contempt shall be commenced by a verified petition with supporting particulars and certified true copies of documents or papers involved therein, and upon full compliance with the requirements for filing initiatory pleadings for civil actions in the court concerned. If the contempt charges arose out of or are related to a principal action pending in the court, the petition for contempt shall allege that fact but said petition shall be docketed, heard and decided separately, unless the court in its discretion orders the consolidation of the contempt charge and the principal action for joint hearing and decision. (Rule 71 of the 1997 Rules of Court)




chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman