Case Digest (G.R. No. 184645)
Facts:
Jose T. Barbieto v. The Honorable Court of Appeals; Mary Rawnsle V. Lopez; Eulogio S. Cecilio; Emilio A. Gonzales III; Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez; and Lieutenant General Alexander B. Yano, G.R. No. 184645, October 30, 2009, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioner Maj. Gen. Jose T. Barbieto was Division Commander of the 4th Infantry Division, Philippine Army. Various personnel of the 4th Infantry Division filed complaint-affidavits before the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices (ODO‑MOLEO), accusing Maj. Gen. Barbieto and Staff Sergeant Roseller A. Echipare of grave misconduct, extortion in enlistments and reinstatements, and payroll anomalies; the administrative case was docketed OMB‑P‑A‑08‑0201‑B and the related criminal case OMB‑P‑C‑08‑0204‑B.
On 29 February 2008 ODO‑MOLEO issued a preventive suspension order against Maj. Gen. Barbieto and S/Sgt. Echipare for up to six months under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770; Barbieto moved for reconsideration. Parallelly, the Army Investigator General recommended charges under Articles 55, 96 and 97 of the Articles of War; Lt. Gen. Alexander B. Yano, Commanding General of the Philippine Army, issued on 13 March 2008 an Order for the Arrest and Confinement of Maj. Gen. Barbieto and S/Sgt. Echipare pursuant to Article 70 of the Articles of War, and Barbieto was arrested and confined on 18 March 2008. The Office of the Army Judge Advocate recommended trial by General Court Martial.
While his motion for reconsideration before ODO‑MOLEO was pending, Maj. Gen. Barbieto filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari with prayer for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the ODO‑MOLEO preventive suspension and Lt. Gen. Yano’s arrest order; the CA required respondents to comment (4 April 2008). In Resolutions dated 6 August 2008 and 22 September 2008 the Court of Appeals denied the prayer for TRO/preliminary injunction and refused reconsideration, respectively, finding no extreme urgency, no showing of irreparable injury, and that injunctive relief was ancillary and would prematurely decide the main petition. The ODO‑MOLEO later denied Barbieto’s motion for reconsideration (Order prepared 27 March 2008, approved 7 November 2008), affirming the preventive suspension.
Petitioner then filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 in this Court, challenging the CA’s denial as violative of procedural due process, for failure to find extreme urgency/irreparable injury, a...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals deny petitioner’s application for a TRO and/or writ of preliminary injunction without due process by not conducting a summary hearing?
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in ruling that petitioner failed to demonstrate extreme urgency and great or irreparable injury to merit injunctive relief?
- Was the Court of Appeals’ refusal to enjoin petitioner’s arrest and confinement improper because it relied on the procedural intertwining of issues and thereby deprived ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)