G.R. No. 216949 - Batac vs. Office of the Ombudsman

Eduardo T. Batac, the petitioner, alleged that in May 2005 his property in Barangay San Antonio, Mexico, Pampanga was being quarried without his consent.
Batac claimed that the quarrying was carried out under the instructions of then-Mexico, Pampanga Mayor Teddy C. Tumang, with the assistance of then-Barangay San Antonio Captain Rafael P. Yabut and Pantaleon C. Martin.
On June 21, 2005, upon visiting his property, Batac observed that it had been unevenly leveled and reduced below ground level due to the quarrying activities.

On July 7, 2005, Batac wrote a letter to Mayor Tumang inquiring about and requesting a stop to the unauthorized quarrying.
Batac attempted to establish contact with Barangay Captain Yabut via text messaging, but received no response.
In response, Mayor Tumang provided Batac with a copy of a July 11, 2005 affidavit executed by Pantaleon C. Martin, wherein Martin claimed to be a tenant and explained that the quarrying was requested due to lahar deposits hindering cultivation.
Batac refuted Martin’s claim of tenancy, maintained that the land was not slated for distribution under the land reform law, and argued that no tenant could authorize the removal of property without the owner’s consent.
Subsequently, Batac demanded payment of ₱600,000.00 for the removed soil and additional compensation for the depreciation of his property.
Multiple subsequent letters and a demand letter through his lawyer were sent by Batac, reiterating his claims and demands, without receiving any satisfactory reply from the local officials.

Based on the alleged unauthorized removal, Batac charged that Mayor Tumang, Barangay Captain Yabut, and Martin committed theft and violated provisions of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
On November 8, 2010, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Resolution finding probable cause for a violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 against the officials, while dismissing charges for theft and the violation under Section 3(a) of RA 3019.
In a concurrent administrative decision, the Ombudsman penalized Mayor Tumang and Barangay Captain Yabut with three-month suspensions for misconduct under RA 6713.

Both Mayor Tumang, Barangay Captain Yabut, and Martin, as well as Batac, filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the initial Resolution.
The Office of the Ombudsman subsequently issued the undated Joint Review Order, which dismissed all charges against the respondents, explaining that no corrupt practice as defined under Section 3(e) of RA 3019 had been committed.
The Joint Review Order cited the absence of undue injury to any party, noting that Batac did not own the lahar deposits, as these were legally considered minerals owned by the State under Republic Act No. 7942 (Philippine Mining Act of 1995) and the Constitution.
On November 27, 2014, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a Joint Order denying Batac’s Motion for Reconsideration and maintaining its earlier dismissal of charges.
Following these decisions, Batac filed a Petition for Certiorari assailing the undated Joint Review Order and the November 27, 2014 Joint Order.

Batac contended that the Office of the Ombudsman had acted with grave abuse of discretion in reversing its initial favorable Resolution, alleging manifest partiality, bad faith, and gross negligence by the respondents in quarrying his property without consent.
Batac asserted his right over the lahar deposits based on Article 440 of the Civil Code, claiming that as a landowner he was entitled to everything naturally attached to his property.
Batac maintained that, even assuming the lahar deposits were minerals, the respondents had no permit to quarry these materials, thereby causing undue injury to both him and the State.

The Office of the Ombudsman, through its legal representative, emphasized that an extraordinary writ of certiorari could only be granted in cases of grave abuse of discretion, not for mere errors in exercising jurisdiction or judgment.
It argued that the determination of probable cause—borne out of a comprehensive fact-finding process—was well within its executive mandate and supported by relevant laws and evidence.
The respondents maintained that the quarrying was consistent with the mandates of local chief executives to promote general welfare and that the lahar deposits, being minerals, were the property of the State.

Whether the Office of the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion by reversing its initial findings and dismissing the charges against Mayor Tumang, Barangay Captain Yabut, and Martin for violations under Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
Whether the removal (hauling) of the lahar deposits from Batac’s property caused undue injury to him, particularly considering his claim of ownership over the lahar deposits under Article 440 of the Civil Code.
Whether the removal of the lahar deposits caused undue injury to the government, especially given that these deposits were used for road development and are considered state-owned as “minerals” under the Philippine Mining Act and the Constitution.