THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 122728. March 21, 1997.]
CASIANO A. ANGCHANGCO, JR., Petitioner, v. THE HON. OMBUDSMAN, ZALDY TAMAYO, GILDA NAVARRA, ODELIA LEGASPI, SALVADOR TAMAYO, GASPAR ABORQUE, ROEL ABAS, REMEDIOS OLITA, ET AL., TEODORO TORREON, ET AL., JIMMY MARTIN, MENRADO ALLAWAN, MARGARITO ESCORIAL, NORBERTO OCAT AND ALEJANDRO ERNA, Respondents.
Libarios & Associates Law Office for Petitioner.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 13, 1997 DECISION; THE COURT RESOLVED TO GRANT THE MOTION; DECRETAL PORTION OF THE DECISION AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE 4 CASES INADVERTENTLY EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF CASES ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED. — The 4 cases, namely, MIN-90-0185, MIN-90-0193, MIN-90-0186, and MIN-90-0187 were likewise subject of the petition but were inadvertently excluded from the list of the cases ordered to be dismissed. WHEREFORE, the decretal portion of the February, 1997 Decision is hereby amended to include MIN-90-0185, MIN-90-0193, MIN-90-0186 and NUN-90-0197, to wit: WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to give DUE COURSE to the petition and GRANT the same. Ombudsman Cases No. MIN-3-90-0671, MIN-90-0132, MIN-90-0133, MIN-900-138, MIN-90-0185, MIN-0-0193, MIN-0186, MIN-90-0187, MIN-90-0188, MIN-90-0189, MIN-90-0190, MIN-90-0191, and MIN-90-0912 are ordered DISMISSED. The Office of the Ombudsman is further directed to issue the corresponding clearance in favor of petitioner.
R E S O L U T I O N
MELO, J.:
On February 13, 1997, this Court rendered a decision granting petitioner’s petition for mandamus, the decretal portion of which reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to give DUE COURSE to the petition and to GRANT the same. Ombudsman Cases No. MIN-3-90-0671, MIN-90-0132, MIN-90-0133, MIN-90-0138, MIN-90-0188, MIN-90-0189, MIN-90-0190, MIN-90-0191, and MIN-90-0192 are ordered DISMISSED. The Office of the Ombudsman is further directed to issue the corresponding clearance in favor of petitioner.
(p. 111, Rollo)
Upon receipt, petitioner immediately proceeded to the Office of Ombudsman, Manila to secure the corresponding clearance as mandated in the February 13, 1997 Decision. Petitioner, however, was informed that the clearance can not be issued due to the fact that the decretal portion of the February 13, 1997 Decision failed to mention 4 cases which were also subject of the petition for mandamus, namely, MIN-90-0185, MIN-90-0193, MIN-90-0186, and MIN-90-0187. Petitioner was likewise advised by the Office of the Ombudsman to file the corresponding manifestation before this Court for clarification of the decretal portion of the February 13, 1997 Decision to include the said 4 cases.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary
Hence, this instant motion.
Indeed, the 4 cases, namely, MIN-90-0185, MIN-90-0193, MIN-90-0186, and MIN-90-0187 were likewise subject of the petition but were inadvertently excluded from the list of the cases ordered to be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the decretal portion of the February 14, 1997 Decision is hereby amended to include MIN-90-0185, MIN-90-0193, MIN-90-0186 and MIN-90-0187,. to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to give DUE COURSE to the petition and GRANT the same. Ombudsman Cases No. MIN-3-90-0671, MIN-90-0132, MIN-90-0133, MIN-900-138, MIN-90-0185, MIN-0-0193, MIN-90-0186, MIN-90-0187, MIN-90-0188, MIN-90-0189, MIN-90-0190, MIN-90-0191, and MIN-90-0912 are ordered DISMISSED. The Office of the Ombudsman is further directed to issue the corresponding clearance in favor of petitioner.
(p. 114, Rollo)
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to give DUE COURSE to the petition and to GRANT the same. Ombudsman Cases No. MIN-3-90-0671, MIN-90-0132, MIN-90-0133, MIN-90-0138, MIN-90-0188, MIN-90-0189, MIN-90-0190, MIN-90-0191, and MIN-90-0192 are ordered DISMISSED. The Office of the Ombudsman is further directed to issue the corresponding clearance in favor of petitioner.
(p. 111, Rollo)
Upon receipt, petitioner immediately proceeded to the Office of Ombudsman, Manila to secure the corresponding clearance as mandated in the February 13, 1997 Decision. Petitioner, however, was informed that the clearance can not be issued due to the fact that the decretal portion of the February 13, 1997 Decision failed to mention 4 cases which were also subject of the petition for mandamus, namely, MIN-90-0185, MIN-90-0193, MIN-90-0186, and MIN-90-0187. Petitioner was likewise advised by the Office of the Ombudsman to file the corresponding manifestation before this Court for clarification of the decretal portion of the February 13, 1997 Decision to include the said 4 cases.chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary
Hence, this instant motion.
Indeed, the 4 cases, namely, MIN-90-0185, MIN-90-0193, MIN-90-0186, and MIN-90-0187 were likewise subject of the petition but were inadvertently excluded from the list of the cases ordered to be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the decretal portion of the February 14, 1997 Decision is hereby amended to include MIN-90-0185, MIN-90-0193, MIN-90-0186 and MIN-90-0187,. to wit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to give DUE COURSE to the petition and GRANT the same. Ombudsman Cases No. MIN-3-90-0671, MIN-90-0132, MIN-90-0133, MIN-900-138, MIN-90-0185, MIN-0-0193, MIN-90-0186, MIN-90-0187, MIN-90-0188, MIN-90-0189, MIN-90-0190, MIN-90-0191, and MIN-90-0912 are ordered DISMISSED. The Office of the Ombudsman is further directed to issue the corresponding clearance in favor of petitioner.
(p. 114, Rollo)
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
