Ombudsman vs Ibrahim
3
May 20, 201 4 CLARO V . MAR ANAN A d mi ni s t r a t or Pamban sangPangasiw aan n gPat u bi g N ational G ov er n ment Center E . D el osS an tosAvenu e QuezonCit y D ear ClaroV. Mar an an , U pon fi n di n g mer i ton t he E n gr .Lil i n g Lan t o I br ah i m’ s M ot i on f or E xec u t i on , t h eRes ol ut i on of t h e C ou r tof A p peal s da t ed Ja n u ary2 8, 2 014 or d ered t herei n stat em en t of E n gr .I b r ah i m t o h is p revious p ost w it h out l osso f sen i o r i t y r i g h t s, or toequ i v a l ent p o s t s h ou l d h i s p r e v ious p ost h asa l r ead yb een fi l ledup, and w i thcor r espon d i n gp aymen t of b ack w a g es. I n t h esam eR es ol u t ion, t h esai d C ou r t men tion edt h at t h eO S G d oesnot op p oset h eexecu t ionof t h eDecisionof t h eC ou r t of A p p ealsdismissin g t h e a d mini st r ative ca se aga i n st I b r ah i m. W eab i d e. Wi th t hei n f or ma t i on t ha t En g r. I b r a h i m hadvo l unt a r i l y avai l o f N I A ’s R at i on a l i zat ionPlan- S ep arati on I n cen t i vePack a ge(u n d er E . O . N o. 3 6 6) and w asse p arated f r om t h eser vi ceeve n bef oret h e i m p lem en tat i on of t hedecisionof t h eO mbu dsman- M i n da n ao di sm i ss i n gh i m f rom se r vice, w e fi ndit c on t rar y t ola w , f a i r n es s an d e q u i t y s h o u l dt h eA g enc y s t i l l be l iab l e t o p ay E n gr. I b r a h i m of hi s b a ck w ages. T he a v a i l me n tofth e Separation I n c e n t i v e p ac k a g e ofE n g r. I b r a h i m e ff ect i ve l yt er mi nated h i m f r om se rv ice. A ssu ch, h ecan not ben e fi t s u bse qu e n t t o h is t er mi n at i on. Pay i n g hi s back w ages wou l d
-
Upload
edison-flores -
Category
Documents
-
view
31 -
download
0
description
ombudsman vs ibrahim
Transcript of Ombudsman vs Ibrahim
7/17/2019 Ombudsman vs Ibrahim
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ombudsman-vs-ibrahim 1/3
May 20, 2014
CLARO V. MARANAN
Administrator
Pambansang Pangasiwaan ng Patubig
National Government Center
E. Delos Santos Avenue
Quezon City
Dear Claro V. Maranan,
Upon finding merit on the Engr. Liling Lanto Ibrahim’s Motion for
Execution, the Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated January 28,
2014 ordered the reinstatement of Engr. Ibrahim to his previous post
without loss of seniority rights, or to equivalent post should his previous
post has already been filled up, and with corresponding payment of back
wages.
In the same Resolution, the said Court mentioned that the OSG does not
oppose the execution of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing
the administrative case against Ibrahim. We abide.
With the information that Engr. Ibrahim had voluntarily avail of NIA’s
Rationalization Plan - Separation Incentive Package (under E.O. No. 366)
and was separated from the service even before the implementation of
the decision of the Ombudsman-Mindanao dismissing him from service,
we find it contrary to law, fairness and equity should the Agency still beliable to pay Engr. Ibrahim of his back wages.
The availment of the Separation Incentive package of Engr. Ibrahim
effectively terminated him from service. As such, he cannot benefit
subsequent to his termination. Paying his back wages would
7/17/2019 Ombudsman vs Ibrahim
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ombudsman-vs-ibrahim 2/3
tantamount to rehiring him again, an act that is prohibited under
Executive Order No. 366, to with:
Section 15. Prohibition on Rehiring of Personnel
Retired/Separated from the Service. Government personnel
who would opt to retire or be separated as a result of
rationalization efforts shall not be appointed or hired in any
agency of the Executive Branch, including
GOCCs/Government Financial Institutions (GFIs), except in
educational institutions and hospitals, within a period of five
(5) years.
Aequitas sequitur legem. “Equity had come not to destroy the law, but to
fulfill it. Every jot and every tittle of law was to be obeyed, but when all
this had been done yet something might be needful, something thatequity would require. Equity respected every world of law, but where law
was defective, in those cases, equity provides equitable right and
remedies.”
Receiving back wages in addition to the separation package already
received would unjustly enrich Engr. Ibrahim at the expense of the
government. Jurisprudence ruled that when a change in the situation of
the parties makes the execution inequitable or unjust, the trial court
may properly refuse to execute the order.
Pending our Petition for Review on Certiorari, a Motion to Stay Execution
(or Motion for Reconsideration?) shall be proper.
Very truly yours,
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA
Solicitor General
MA. ANTONIA EDITA C. DIZON
7/17/2019 Ombudsman vs Ibrahim
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ombudsman-vs-ibrahim 3/3
Assistant Solicitor General
MARIA HAZEL P. VALDEZ – ACANTILADO
Senior State Solicitor
![OMBUDSMAN Case - Boza vs Cruz et al., [OMB-M-C-10-0345-J]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/577cb4161a28aba7118c4b2c/ombudsman-case-boza-vs-cruz-et-al-omb-m-c-10-0345-j.jpg)
