Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 393 views

    Erice Vs Sison

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Mascarinas
    This case involves a petition filed by Judge Sison seeking a declaratory relief regarding an order of suspension issued by the Office of the Ombudsman against then Mayor Echiverri. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the case was not a valid subject for declaratory relief as court orders cannot be challenged through such petitions. While Judge Sison issued a preliminary injunction in the case, the Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law, as he did not recognize that the Ombudsman's order was beyond the scope of what could be challenged through a declaratory relief petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Erice Vs Sison

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Mascarinas
    393 views2 pages
    This case involves a petition filed by Judge Sison seeking a declaratory relief regarding an order of suspension issued by the Office of the Ombudsman against then Mayor Echiverri. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the case was not a valid subject for declaratory relief as court orders cannot be challenged through such petitions. While Judge Sison issued a preliminary injunction in the case, the Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law, as he did not recognize that the Ombudsman's order was beyond the scope of what could be challenged through a declaratory relief petition.

    Original Description:

    Declaratory Relief

    Original Title

    erice vs sison

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a petition filed by Judge Sison seeking a declaratory relief regarding an order of suspension issued by the Office of the Ombudsman against then Mayor Echiverri. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the case was not a valid subject for declaratory relief as court orders cannot be challenged through such petitions. While Judge Sison issued a preliminary injunction in the case, the Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law, as he did not recognize that the Ombudsman's order was beyond the scope of what could be challenged through a declaratory relief petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    393 views2 pages

    Erice Vs Sison

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Mascarinas
    This case involves a petition filed by Judge Sison seeking a declaratory relief regarding an order of suspension issued by the Office of the Ombudsman against then Mayor Echiverri. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the case was not a valid subject for declaratory relief as court orders cannot be challenged through such petitions. While Judge Sison issued a preliminary injunction in the case, the Supreme Court found him guilty of gross ignorance of the law, as he did not recognize that the Ombudsman's order was beyond the scope of what could be challenged through a declaratory relief petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    ERICE VS SISON

    FACTS:

    Complainant Erice, then Vice Mayor of Caloocan City, filed a complaint against then Mayor Enrico R. Echiverri, et al
    before the Office of the Ombudsman, for alleged violation of the Government Service Insurance System Act. 4

    The Ombudsman issued an Order5 of Preventive Suspension (Order of Suspension) on July 18, 2011 against
    Echiverri, et al.,

    Aggrieved by the Order of Suspension, Echiverri, et al. went to the Court of Appeals (CA). CA affirmed the
    Ombudsman decision.

    Echiverri, et al. filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief with Prayer for TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction 9 with
    the RTC of Caloocan City, Echiverri, et al. prayed that the RTC "make a definite judicial declaration on the rights and
    obligations of the parties asserting adverse legal interests with respect to the implementation of [their]
    suspension."

    On even date, RTC Executive Judge Eleanor R. Kwong issued a 72- hour ex-parte Order to enjoin the DILG and Erice
    from implementing the Order of Suspension.

    The case was subsequently re-raffled to herein Respondent Judge Sison.

    On January 11, Judge Sison noted that the 72-hour TRO of the Order of Suspension would be expiring the next day
    and that the parties ought to finish with the presentation of evidence before noon of January 12, 2012. Counsel for
    the DILG informed Judge Sison that the OSG was not informed that the summary hearing. Nevertheless, Judge
    Sison proceeded with the hearing and allowed Echiverri, et al. to present their evidence until 5:00 p.m. that day.17

    The OSG invoked its right to cross-examine the witnesses earlier presented by Echiverri, et al. but Judge Sison
    denied the same.

    With this, Erice filed a case of (i) gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, (ii)
    knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order as determined by a competent court in an appropriate
    proceeding, and (iii) gross ignorance of the law or procedure against Judge Sison.

    OCA found Judge Sison to be guilty.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the case be a valid subject matter for Declaratory relief

    RULING:

    No.

    In any event, Judge Sison should have, at the very least, been aware that court orders or decisions cannot be the
    subject matter of a petition for declaratory relief.47 They are not included within the purview of the words "other
    written instrument"48 in Rule 6349 of the Rules of Court governing petitions for declaratory relief. The same
    principle applies to orders, resolutions, or decisions of quasi-judicial bodies,50 and this is anchored on the
    principle ofresjudicata.51 Consequently, a judgment rendered by a court or a quasi-judicial body is conclusive on
    the parties, subject only to appellate authority.52 The losing party cannot modify or escape the effects of judgment
    under the guise of an action for declaratory relief.53

    Here, Echiverri, et al.'s Petition for Declaratory Relief specifically prayed that the RTC "make a definite judicial
    declaration on the rights and obligations of the parties asserting adverse legal interests with respect to the
    implementation of the [order of] preventive suspension,"54 effectively putting into question the CA-affirmed
    Ombudsman Order of Suspension - a matter clearly beyond the ambit of the RTC's jurisdiction. This, coupled with
    the deference to the basic precepts of jurisdiction required of judges, leads to no other conclusion than that Judge
    Sison acted in gross ignorance of the law in proceeding with the issuance of the writ of preliminary
    injunction.1âwphi1

    You might also like