Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Fabian vs Desierto

Fabian vs Desierto

Ratings: (0)|Views: 115|Likes:
Published by Dani Eseque

More info:

Published by: Dani Eseque on Oct 03, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Requirements as to certain laws: Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme CourtFABIAN vs DESIERTOG.R. No. 129742 September 16, 1998FACTSPetitioner Teresita G. Fabian was the major stockholder and president of PROMATConstruction Development Corporation. Private respondent Nestor V. Agustin was theincumbent District Engineer of the First Metro Manila Engineering District.PROMAT participate in the bidding for government construction projects including thoseunder FMED. Agustin and Fabian became involved in an amorous relationship that last forsome time. During the course of the affair, Agustin gifted PROMAT with public workscontracts and interceded in problems concerning the company in his office. When Fabiantried to terminate the relationship, Agustin resisted her attempts to do so to the extent ofharassment, intimidation and threats. Fabian eventually file an administrative case againstAgustin in a letter-complaint dated July 25, 1994.The Ombudsman found Agustin guilty of misconduct and meted out the penalty ofsuspension without pay for 1 year. When Agustin moved for reconsideration, theOmbudsman inhibited himself after he discovered that the respondent’s counsel had beenhis classmate and close associate. The case was transferred to the deputy ombudsmanwho exonerated Agustin from the administrative charges. Fabian filed an appeal to theCourt, pointing out that Sec. 27 of RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1990) administrativedisciplinary cases may be appealed to the Supreme Court ten (10) days from receipt of thewritten notice of the order, directive, decision or denial of motion for reconsideration inaccordance with Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.ISSUEDoes Sec. 27 of RA 6770 violate Sec. 30, Art. VI of the Constitution?HELDNO. Citing its ruling in First Lepanto Ceramics, Inc. vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., theCourt says that Sec. 30, Art. VI was intended to prevent Congress in enacting legislationthat would enlarge the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The provision in Sec. 30, Art. VI gavethe Court a measure of control over cases place under its appellate jurisdiction. There was

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->