Scribd
Upload
236 views1 page

Lopez V CA, GR No 144573

The case involves a lawyer, Atty. Liggayu, who was suspended for 6 months by the Office of the Ombudsman for administrative offenses. Liggayu appealed his suspension to the Court of Appeals, which issued a Temporary Restraining Order to halt the suspension pending appeal. The Ombudsman argued the Court of Appeals erred in suspending the execution of Liggayu's suspension. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion by enjoining the suspension pending appeal, as suspensions without pay should be stayed as a matter of right during an appeal. While appeals do not automatically stay judgments, relevant statutes and precedents regarding appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman

Uploaded by

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

Lopez V CA, GR No 144573

The case involves a lawyer, Atty. Liggayu, who was suspended for 6 months by the Office of the Ombudsman for administrative offenses. Liggayu appealed his suspension to the Court of Appeals, which issued a Temporary Restraining Order to halt the suspension pending appeal. The Ombudsman argued the Court of Appeals erred in suspending the execution of Liggayu's suspension. The Supreme Court ruled that the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion by enjoining the suspension pending appeal, as suspensions without pay should be stayed as a matter of right during an appeal. While appeals do not automatically stay judgments, relevant statutes and precedents regarding appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman

Uploaded by

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

DE LEON, M.S.

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

Case Title: Lopez v. Court of Appeals


Case Reference: GR No. 144573
Promulgation Date: January 24, 2002
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
Topic:

Facts
The case involves Atty. Romeo A. Liggayu, charged with administrative offenses related to
the issuance of a subpoena and alleged involvement in anomalous contracts at the
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO). The Office of the Ombudsman suspended
him for one year but later reduced it to six months. Liggayu sought relief via a petition to the
Court of Appeals, which issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against his
suspension. The Ombudsman's office implemented the suspension before being named in
the petition. Despite their explanation, the Court of Appeals ordered Liggayu's reinstatement
pending resolution of his appeal, leading to the present petition contesting the Court of
Appeals' decision to suspend the execution of Liggayu's suspension.

Issue
Whether the Court if Appeals gravely abused its discretion in enjoining of petitioner’s
suspension pending appeal

Ruling
No, the Court of Appeals did not abuse its discretion in issuing the Writ of Preliminary
Mandatory Injunction to halt the execution of the respondent's suspension pending appeal.
Since the penalty imposed on the respondent was a six-month suspension without pay, and
considering the appeal filed, the stay of execution should be granted as a matter of right.

Regarding the application of Rule 43, Section 12 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which
states that an appeal does not automatically stay the judgment or resolution sought to be
reviewed, it's important to note that the decision in Fabian v. Desierto declared
unconstitutional the portion of Section 27 of RA 6770 regarding administrative appeals to the
Supreme Court. As per this ruling, administrative appeals from the Office of the Ombudsman
should be directed to the Court of Appeals. However, this declaration did not affect the
provisions of Section 27 of RA 6770 and the Office of the Ombudsman's Rules of Procedure
regarding the finality and execution of decisions.

The principle of severability applies here, meaning that if a statute contains unconstitutional
portions that can be separated from the rest, the valid portions remain in effect. The
separability clause in Section 40 of Republic Act No. 6770 supports the presumption that the
legislature intended separability, rather than complete nullity of the statute.

You might also like