Scribd
Upload
84 views1 page

Ombudsman Case: Equal Protection Ruling

Petitioners were employees of the Traffic Regulatory Board who were implicated in certain irregularities uncovered in a special audit conducted by the Commission on Audit. They filed a petition to enjoin the Office of the Ombudsman from conducting a preliminary investigation against them. The petitioners argued their constitutional right to equal protection was violated. The Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman has broad discretion in how it pursues investigations, so varying treatment of similar cases does not alone constitute unequal protection. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, so it denied the petitioners' motions.

Uploaded by

Christina Aure
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
84 views1 page

Ombudsman Case: Equal Protection Ruling

Petitioners were employees of the Traffic Regulatory Board who were implicated in certain irregularities uncovered in a special audit conducted by the Commission on Audit. They filed a petition to enjoin the Office of the Ombudsman from conducting a preliminary investigation against them. The petitioners argued their constitutional right to equal protection was violated. The Supreme Court ruled that the Office of the Ombudsman has broad discretion in how it pursues investigations, so varying treatment of similar cases does not alone constitute unequal protection. The Court found no grave abuse of discretion, so it denied the petitioners' motions.

Uploaded by

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

MA. CHONA M. DIMAYUGA, FELIPE T. AGUINALDO, AND NOEL C. INUMERABLE, Petitioners, v.

OFFICE
OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Respondent.

Topic: Equal Protection of Law

Facts:

Petitioners Maria Chona Dimayuga, Noel Inumerable and Felipe Aguinaldo were employees of the Traffic
Regulatory Board (TRB) of [the] Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Petitioner
Dimayuga used to be the TRB's executive director.

In June 1992, an anonymous complaint was filed against petitioners concerning certain transactions of
the TRB from 1989 to May 1992. Consequently, a special audit was conducted by the Special Audit Office
(SAO) of the Commission on Audit (COA).

The SAO report, detailing the audit of selected transactions of the TRB was finalized on November 4,
1994. As a consequence of said report, certain irregularities were uncovered, in which petitioners were
implicated. It therefore recommended appropriate action against petitioners.

This is a petition for certiorari with a plea for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary
injunction. Petitioners, Ma. Chona M. Dimayuga, Felipe T. Aguinaldo and Noel C. Inumerable, seek to
enjoin respondent, Office of the Ombudsman, from conducting a preliminary investigation and any
further proceedings in OMB 0-95-0430. Petitioners likewise seek to annul the following: an order dated
June 27, 1996, which denied a motion for the suspension of the preliminary investigation;an order dated
November 18, 1996, which denied a motion for reconsideration of the earlier order; and an order dated
March 13, 1997, which denied a letter-appeal questioning the last mentioned order.

Issue: Whether or not Respondent Ombudsman violated petitioners' constitutional right to equal
protection of the laws, guaranteed under Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution

Ruling:

No. As stated, the Office of the Ombudsman has been granted virtually plenary investigatory powers by
the Constitution and by law. Thus, as a rule, the Office of the Ombudsman may, for every particular
investigation, whether instigated by a complaint or on its own initiative, decide how best to pursue each
investigation. This power gives the Office of the Ombudsman the discretion to dismiss without prejudice
a preliminary investigation if it finds that the final decision of COA is necessary for its investigation and
the future prosecution of the case. In another case with similar factual antecedents, it may pursue the
investigation because it realizes that the decision of COA is irrelevant or unnecessary to the investigation
and prosecution of the case. Since the Office of the Ombudsman is granted such latitude, its varying
treatment of similarly situated investigations cannot by itself be considered a violation of any of the
parties' rights to the equal protection of the laws.

Thus, petitioners have not shown that respondent committed a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying their motions to dismiss the case or to suspend the proceedings.

You might also like