Case Digest (G.R. No. 142888)
Facts:
Evelio P. Barata v. Benjamin Abalos, Jr., Office of the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 142888, June 06, 2001, Supreme Court Third Division, Gonzaga-Reyes, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Evelio P. Barata was the head of the San Miguel Bukid Homeowners' Association, Inc., whose members occupied a parcel of land in Mandaluyong City. In March 1995 the City Government of Mandaluyong initiated construction of medium-size condominiums and row houses for qualified association members; the occupants vacated expecting completion within 540 days from June 1995, but the project was not finished. When their demands for completion went unanswered by then-Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr. and later by Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Jr., petitioner filed an administrative complaint on May 17, 1999 against Mayor Abalos, Jr. for alleged violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) for failing to act promptly on public letters and requests.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative complaint by Decision dated July 21, 1999 for insufficiency of evidence, and denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Order dated September 10, 1999 (the denials were received by petitioner on October 15, 1999). Petitioner first filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 140272) on November 4, 1999; the Second Division denied that petition by Resolution dated November 24, 1999 in light of A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC and the ruling in Fabian v. Desierto (G.R. No. 129742). The resolution was received by petitioner on January 18, 2000.
On February 1, 2000 petitioner filed a “Petition for Review on Certiorari” with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 56973). The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision dated April 10, 2000 dismissing the petition on the grounds that (1) the Ombudsman’s decision exonerating Mayor Abalos was not appealable and (2) the petition was filed out of time. Petitioner then brought the present petition for review in certiorari to the Supreme Court seeking to reverse the Court of Appeals’ April 10 decision and the O...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the Ombudsman’s decision absolving a respondent of administrative charges appealable, and if so, what is the proper forum for such an appeal?
- Was petitioner’s appeal filed within the reglementary period?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in declining to address the substantive contention under Sectio...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)