Please ensure to make a copy of this template and keep it at 750-850 words (for short cases) and 1,500

words (for
longer cases).

Details
Docket Number G.R. No. 217126-27
Case Digest
Conchita Carpio Morales, in Her Capacity as the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs.
Case Title
Court of Appeals (sixth Division) and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., Respondents.

Facts
● On July 2014, Binay, Jr. and public officers of the City Government of Makati was accused of violating
R.A. 3019, otherwise known as the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” in connection with the 5
phases of the procurement and construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building.
● The Ombudsman, in March 2015, placed Binay, Jr. et al. on a preventive suspension order.
● Binay, Jr. shortly after filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA). Praying for the
nullification of the preventive suspension order and the implementation of an enjoining TRO/WPI. The
appeal was granted.
● The Ombudsman filed a comment on the actions of the CA. The Ombudsman claims that the CA had no
jurisdiction to grant Binay, Jr. 's prayer for TRO, citing Section 14 of R.A. 6770, or “The Ombudsman
Act of 1989”. Stating that no injunctive writ could be issued to delay the Ombudsman’s investigation
unless there is prima facie evidence that the subject matter thereof is outside the latter’s jurisdiction.

Issue
1. Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction in ruling the main petition for certiorari
2. Did the Court of Appeals have the jurisdiction to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)/ Writ of
Preliminary Injunction (WPI)?

Held/Rationale
1. Yes, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction in ruling the main petition for certiorari.

The Ombudsman’s argument is based on Sec.14 of R.A. 6770:

Restrictions. — No writ of injunction shall be issued by any court to delay an investigation being
conducted by the Ombudsman under this Act, unless there is a prima facie evidence that the subject
matter.

No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy against the decision or findings of the
Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure question of law.

The exception to the no injunction policy is when there is prima facie evidence that the subject matter of
the investigation is outside the office's jurisdiction. The Office of the Ombudsman has disciplinary
authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government and its subdivisions,
instrumentalities, and agencies, with the exception only of impeachable officers, Members of Congress,
and the Judiciary.

The second paragraph of Sec. 14 of R.A 6770 in particular, is the basis of the Ombudsman’s argument
that the Court of Appeals has no jurisdiction over the ruling, because the Supreme Court is supposed to
have the sole jurisdiction over the main petition for certiorari. The second paragraph of Section 14, RA
6770 also bans the whole range of remedies against issuances of the Ombudsman, by prohibiting: (a) an
 appeal against any decision or finding of the Ombudsman, and (b) "any application of remedy" (subject
to the exception below) against the same.

However, the provision gives an exception to the foregoing general rule. While the specific procedural
vehicle is not explicit from its text, it is fairly deducible that the second paragraph of Section 14, RA
6770 excepts, as the only allowable remedy against "the decision or findings of the Ombudsman," a
Rule 45 appeal, for the reason that it is the only remedy taken to the Supreme Court on "pure questions
of law."

In this case, the Rule 65 petition for certiorari in CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 was filed by Binay, Jr. before
the CA in order to nullify the preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman, an interlocutory
order, 148 hence, unappealable.

2. Yes, the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to issue a Temporary Restraining Order/ Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.

The basis for the CA's subject matter jurisdiction over Binay, Jr.'s main petition for certiorari in
CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 is Section 9 (1), Chapter I of BP 129, as amended:
Section 9. Jurisdiction. — The Court of Appeals shall exercise:
1. Original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus, and quo
warranto, and auxiliary writs or processes, whether or not in aid of its appellate jurisdiction[.]

The CA's certiorari jurisdiction, original and concurrent with the Regional Trial Courts, and the
Supreme Court. In view of the concurrence of these courts' jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, the
doctrine of hierarchy of courts should be followed.

A temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction both constitute temporary measures
availed of during the pendency of the action. The sole object of a temporary restraining order or a writ of
preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of
the case can be heard.

With these considerations in mind, the Court rules that when Congress passed the first paragraph of
Section 14, RA 6770 and, in so doing, took away from the courts their power to issue a TRO and/or WPI
to enjoin an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, it encroached upon this Court's constitutional
rule-making authority.

Hence, with Congress interfering with matters of procedure without the Court's consent thereto, it
remains that the CA had the authority to issue the questioned injunctive writs enjoining the
implementation of the preventive suspension order against Binay, Jr.

Other Information (if applicable)