Case Digest (G.R. No. 159883) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Dr. Pedro F. Gobenciong v. Hon. Court of Appeals, Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas), Regional Director of the Department of Health, Region VIII, and Flora dela Peñalosa, the Supreme Court consolidated three separate petitions (G.R. Nos. 159883, 168059, and 173212) arising from administrative case OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370. Between December 3 and 27, 1996, Gobenciong, then Administrative Officer IV of the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC) in Tacloban City, processed requisitions, purchase orders, and payments totaling PhP 1,161,817.35 for two nebulizers and one “particle counter” (hemoanalyzer) from Alvez Commercial, Inc. Despite certifications of acceptance by Engr. Jose M. Jocano, Jr. and Supply Officer Crisologo R. Babula and a Commission on Audit inspection report, the hemoanalyzer allegedly never arrived until a replacement was delivered on April 1, 1997.On June 20, 1997, Dr. Flora dela Peñalosa filed with the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas a complaint charging Gobe
Case Digest (G.R. No. 159883) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Petitions
- Three petitions consolidated before the Supreme Court:
- G.R. No. 159883 – Dr. Pedro F. Gobenciong’s Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) challenging CA orders enforcing his preventive suspension.
- G.R. No. 168059 – Office of the Ombudsman’s Petition for Certiorari (Rule 65) assailing CA decision setting aside Ombudsman-imposed one-year suspension.
- G.R. No. 173212 – Dr. Gobenciong’s Petition for Review on Certiorari (Rule 45) attacking CA decision upholding Ombudsman’s suspension order.
- Originating case: OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370 (Dr. Flora de la PeAa v. EVRMC officials) for alleged falsification of documents and misconduct in procurement of a hemoanalyzer.
- Procurement and Administrative Complaint
- December 1996 – EVRMC issued RIV EO-1-96 and PO EO-5-96 for two nebulizers and one hemoanalyzer at Php 1,195,998 per unit; Alvez Commercial, Inc. won the bid.
- Delivery documents (Certification of Acceptance, COA Inspection Report) indicated receipt on December 20, 1996; Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9612-1986 issued December 26, 1996; payment via Landbank check released December 27, 1996.
- March–April 1997 – Alvez replaced a “slightly defective” hemoanalyzer; new unit inspected and accepted by EVRMC officials including Gobenciong.
- June 20, 1997 – Dr. de la PeAa filed administrative complaint with Ombudsman-Visayas; DOH filed formal charge October 29, 1997 for grave misconduct and neglect.
- Preventive Suspension and Appeals
- August 24, 1998 – Deputy Ombudsman-Visayas ordered preventive suspension (six months without pay) of Gobenciong; implementation directed November 1998 despite Gobenciong’s motion for reconsideration and CA-issued TRO.
- March 21, 2000 – Ombudsman rendered Decision finding Gobenciong guilty of conduct grossly prejudicial and meted one-year suspension without pay; motion for reconsideration denied August 10, 2000.
- November 26, 2002 (CA-G.R. SP No. 49585) – CA denied Gobenciong’s certiorari petition on preventive suspension; reconsideration denied August 27, 2003.
- April 29, 2005 (CA-G.R. SP No. 61687) – CA held Ombudsman’s penalty recommendatory and set aside Ombudsman Decision and Order insofar as directly imposing one-year suspension; May 29, 2006 resolution denied reconsideration.
- January 16, 2005 – Gobenciong retired from service.
Issues:
- Preventive Suspension
- Whether the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order is immediately executory despite a timely motion for reconsideration and a CA-issued TRO, and whether its implementation violated Gobenciong’s rights to due process and equal protection.
- Disciplinary Authority
- Whether the Ombudsman’s power to impose administrative penalties is merely recommendatory, excluding authority to ensure compliance with its decisions.
- Constitutionality of RA 6770
- Whether Sections 15(1), 19, 21, 24, and 25 of RA 6770 unconstitutionally delegate legislative power and violate the equal protection clause by granting the Ombudsman sweeping investigative, prosecutorial, and disciplinary authority.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)