Tampengco, Michael Alerick B. 11185562 Topic: Earliest Opportunity Case: Umali vs.

GUingona, 305 SCRA 533 (1999) Brief Summary: The case is a case filed for the dismissal of the petition for Certiorari Prohibition and Injunction brought by petitioner against the respondents. It was on October 27, 1993 when Osmundo Umali was appointed as Regional Director of the Bureau of Internal Revenue by Pres. Fidel V. Ramos. The late President received a memorandum alleging against the petitioner in violation of internal revenue laws during the incumbency as Regional Director. On October 6, 1994, President Ramos issued an Administrative Order No. 152 dismissing the petitioner from service with forfeiture of retirement and all benefits provided by law. The petitioner moved for reconsideration but the Office of the President denied the motion for reconsideration. December 1, 1994, a petition is brought to the regional Trial Court of Makati pertaining to Certiorari, Prohibition and Injunction of Administrative Order No. 152. Issues: (a) Whether or not administrative order no. 152 violated the petitioner's right to security of tenure (b) Whether or not the petitioner was denied of due process in the issuance of administrative order no. 152 (c) Whether the PCAGC is validly constituted government agency and whether the petitioner can raise the issue of its constitutionality belated in its motion for reconsideration of the trial court's decision (d) Whether or not in the light of the ombudsman resolution dismissing the charges against petitioner, there is still basis for petitioner's dismissal with forfeiture of benefits as ruled in administrative order no. 152

Ruling: (a) Whether or not administrative order no. 152 violated the petitioner's right to security of tenure NO. Neither can it be said that there was a violation of what petitioner asserts as his security of tenure. The petitioner claimed that as a Regional Director of Bureau of Internal revenue he is CESO eligible entitled to security of tenure however it is anemic of evidentiary support. But it was fatal that he wasn't able to provide sufficient evidence on this matter. (b) Whether or not the petitioner was denied of due process in the issuance of administrative order no. 152

there is still basis for petitioner's dismissal with forfeiture of benefits as ruled in administrative order no. (c) Whether the PCAGC is validly constituted government agency and whether the petitioner can raise the issue of its constitutionality belated in its motion for reconsideration of the trial court's decision The constitutionality of PCAGC was only posed by the petitioner in his motion for reconsideration before the Regional Trial Court of Makati. and in the exercise of its equity powers. the Court hereby GRANTS the petition Accordingly Administrative order no 152 is considered LIFTED and petitioner can be allowed to retire with full benefits No pronouncement as to costs. Michael Alerick B. Administrative Order No. petitioner was not denied the right to due processes before the PCAGC. the Court has decided to consider the dismissal and because the Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue is no longer interested in pursuing the case. in light of the foregoing effective and substantive supervening events. Dispositive: Wherefore. 11185562 NO. 152 The administrative action against the petitioner was taken prior to the institution of the criminal case. 152 were based on the results of investigation conducted by the PCAGC and not on the criminal charges before the ombudsman. The Court of Appeals ruled correctly on the first three issues to be sure.Tampengco. However considering antecedent facts and circumstances. . Records show that the petitioner filed his answer and other pleadings with respect to his alleged violations of internal revenue laws and regulations and he attended the hearings before the investigatory body. 152. Note: The petition is dismissible because the issues raised by the petitioner does not constitute any valid legal basis for overturning the findings and conclusions by the Court of Appeals. It is too late to raise the said issue for the first time at such late stage of the proceedings below (d) Whether or not in the light of the ombudsman resolution dismissing the charges against petitioner. Finally the Solicitor General has no more basis to enact Administrative Order No.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful