Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Conchita Carpio Morales Vs CA Digest
Conchita Carpio Morales Vs CA Digest
Facts:
A complaint/affidavit was filed by Atty. Renato L. Bondal and
Nicolas "Ching" Enciso VI before the Office of the Ombudsman
against Binay, Jr. and other public officers and employees of the
City Government of Makati (Binay, Jr., et al), accusing them of
Plunder11 and violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019, 12 otherwise
known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," in
connection with the five (5) phases of the procurement and
construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building (Makati
Parking Building).
The Ombudsman constituted a Special Panel of Investigators 14 to
conduct a fact-finding investigation, submit an investigation
report, and file the necessary complaint, if warranted (1st Special
Panel). the 1st Special Panel filed a complaint16 (OMB Complaint)
against Binay, Jr., et al, charging them with six (6) administrative
cases17 for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and six (6) criminal
cases18 for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, Malversation of
Public Funds, and Falsification of Public Documents (OMB Cases).
Binays First Term:
o Binay, Jr. issued the Notice of Award21 for Phase III, IV and
V of the Makati Parking Building project to Hilmarc's
Construction Corporation (Hilmarc's), and consequently,
executed the corresponding contract without the required
publication and the lack of architectural design,24 and
approved the release of funds therefor.
Binays Second Term:
o Binay, Jr. approved the release of funds for the remaining
balance of contract with Hilmarc's for Phase V of the Makati
Parking Building project; and
o Approved the release of funds for the remaining balance of
the contract48 with MANA Architecture & Interior Design Co.
(MANA) for the design and architectural services covering
the Makati Parking Building.
Before Binay, Jr., et al.'s filing of their counter-affidavits, the
Ombudsman, the subject preventive suspension order, placing
Binay, Jr., et al. under preventive suspension for not more than
six (6) months without pay, during the pendency of the OMB
Cases.53 The Ombudsman ruled that the requisites for the
preventive suspension of a public officer are present,54 finding
that:
o (a) the evidence of Binay, Jr., et al.'s guilt was strong given
that
(1) the losing bidders and members of the Bids and
Awards Committee of Makati City had attested to the
irregularities attending the Makati Parking Building
project;
(2) the documents on record negated the publication
of bids; and
(3) the disbursement vouchers, checks, and official
receipts showed the release of funds; and
o (b) (1) Binay, Jr., et al. were administratively charged with
Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service;
o (2) said charges, if proven to be true, warrant removal from
public service under the Revised Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), and
o (3) Binay, Jr., et al.'s respective positions give them access
to public records and allow them to influence possible
witnesses; hence, their continued stay in office may
prejudice the investigation relative to the OMB Cases filed
against them.
Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals:
o Binay contends: that he could not be held
administratively liable for any anomalous activity
attending any of the five (5) phases of the Makati Parking
Building project since: (a) Phases I and II were undertaken
before he was elected Mayor of Makati in 2010; and (b)
Phases III to V transpired during his first term and that his
re-election as City Mayor of Makati for a second
term effectively condoned his administrative liability
therefor, if any, thus rendering the administrative cases
against him moot and academic.61In any event, Binay, Jr.
claimed that the Ombudsman's preventive
suspension order failed to show that the evidence of
guilt presented against him is strong, maintaining that
he did not participate in any of the purported
irregularities.62 In support of his prayer for injunctive relief,
Binay, Jr. argued that he has a clear and unmistakable right
to hold public office, having won by landslide vote in the
2010 and 2013 elections, and that, in view of the
condonation doctrine, as well as the lack of evidence to
sustain the charges against him, his suspension from office
would undeservedly deprive the electorate of the services
of the person they have conscientiously chosen and voted
into office.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the CA has subject matter jurisdiction to
issue a TRO and/or WPI enjoining the implementation of a
preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman;
2. Whether or not the CA gravely abused its discretion in
issuing the TRO and eventually, the WPI in CA-G.R. SP No.
139453 enjoining the implementation of the preventive
suspension order against Binay, Jr. based on the
condonation doctrine
Held:
1. YES
o OMB contends that the CA has no jurisdiction to issue any
provisional injunctive writ against her office to enjoin its
preventive suspension orders. As basis, she invokes the first
paragraph of Section 14, RA 6770 in conjunction with her
office's independence under the 1987 Constitution. She
advances the idea that "[i]n order to further ensure [her office's]
independence, [RA 6770] likewise insulated it from judicial
intervention,"157particularly, "from injunctive reliefs traditionally
obtainable from the courts,"158 claiming that said writs may work
"just as effectively as direct harassment or political pressure
would."
2.
A. Subject matter of the CA's iniunctive writs is the preventive
suspension order.
E. Consequence of ruling.
As for this section of the Decision, the issue to be resolved is whether
or not the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the assailed
injunctive writs.
It is well-settled that an act of a court or tribunal can only be
considered as with grave abuse of discretion when such act is done
in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be
so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to
a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in
contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary
and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. 311 It has also
been held that "grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower
court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the law or
existing jurisprudence."312
As earlier established, records disclose that the CA's resolutions
directing the issuance of the assailed injunctive writs were all hinged
on cases enunciating the condonation doctrine. To recount, the March
16, 2015 Resolution directing the issuance of the subject TRO was
based on the case of Governor Garcia, Jr., while the April 6, 2015
Resolution directing the issuance of the subject WPI was based on the
cases of Aguinaldo, Salalima, Mayor Garcia, and again, Governor
Garcia, Jr. Thus, by merely following settled precedents on the
condonation doctrine, which at that time, unwittingly remained "good
law," it cannot be concluded that the CA committed a grave abuse of
discretion based on its legal attribution above. Accordingly, the WPI
against the Ombudsman's preventive suspension order was correctly
issued.
With this, the ensuing course of action should have been for the CA to
resolve the main petition forcertiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 on
the merits. However, considering that the Ombudsman, on October 9,
2015, had already found Binay, Jr. administratively liable and imposed
upon him the penalty of dismissal, which carries the accessory penalty
of perpetual disqualification from holding public office, for the present
administrative charges against him, the said CA petition appears to
have been mooted.313 As initially intimated, the preventive suspension
order is only an ancillary issuance that, at its core, serves the purpose
of assisting the Office of the Ombudsman in its investigation. It
therefore has no more purpose - and perforce, dissolves - upon the
termination of the office's process of investigation in the instant
administrative case.