G.R. No. 159940 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Civil Service Commission

Petitioners filed consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 with prayers for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO).
The petitions assailed two issuances by the Office of the Ombudsman in case OMB-V-C-15-0285:

The Resolution dated October 11, 2016 finding probable cause for violation of PD 449 (Cockfighting Law of 1974, as amended by PD 1602).
The Order dated January 17, 2017 denying the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration.

The matters involved alleged irregularities in the approval and conduct of a cockfighting event during the town fiesta in the Municipality of Ubay, Bohol.

On November 6, 2013, the Sangguniang Bayan of Ubay, Bohol, passed Resolution No. 205, Series of 2013, directing the Municipal Mayor to allow 3-win cockfights on February 1 and 2, 2014 at the Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Gymnasium.
On January 4, 2014, the Sangguniang Barangay of Union, Ubay, Bohol, approved its own Resolution No. 06, Series of 2014, seeking a favorable endorsement for holding 3-win cockfights on January 28, 29, and 30, 2014 at the Union Cultural and Sports Center.
On January 8, 2014, the Sangguniang Bayan amended its earlier resolution (Resolution No. 205) via Resolution No. 08, Series of 2014, changing the dates to January 28-30, 2014 and the venue to the Barangay Union Gym.
A Special Permit was issued on January 9, 2014 by the Provincial Director (on behalf of the PNP Chief) authorizing the cockfighting event on the specified dates and venue during the town fiesta season.
A subsequent special permit was issued by the then-Mayor Atup, emphasizing that regulatory fees and existing laws governing cockfights must be observed.

A private complainant, Cesar C. Arro, Sr., on April 10, 2014, filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman in Cebu City for violations of PD 449 against various public officials.
The complaint charged:

Petitioners-councilors (including then-Mayor Atup, then-Vice Mayor Uy, and councilors Bonghanoy, Besas, Tanjay, Atupan, and Bacolod) for approving resolutions and facilitating the cockfighting event.
Petitioners-brgy officials for attesting to and endorsing Barangay Resolution No. 06, Series of 2014, thereby allowing the cockfight in an unlicensed cockpit.

The Office of the Ombudsman, after a fact-finding investigation by its Field Investigation Office, filed a formal Complaint against the petitioners for violation of PD 449 as amended by PD 1602.

On October 11, 2016, the Ombudsman formally issued a Resolution finding probable cause to indict the respondents for one count of violation of PD 449.

The Resolution recommended the immediate filing of an Information in court against the petitioners, except for one official (Gemma B. Malinao, whose complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause).

On January 17, 2017, the Ombudsman issued an Order denying the petitioners’ motions for reconsideration.
The central factual contention involved whether the cockfighting event was conducted under the proper legal provision: whether it should have been categorized under Section 5(d) (which mandates cockfights be held only in licensed cockpits during local fiestas) or Section 5(e) (allowing cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists and balikbayans in alternative venues).

A TRO was issued by the Court on June 7, 2017, enjoining the filing of the Information with the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB 17-CRM-0753.
Further clarifications regarding the suspension of proceedings in the Sandiganbayan were issued on January 29, 2018.
Petitioners contended that the Ombudsman misapplied Section 5(d) instead of Section 5(e) of PD 449, thus lacking probable cause for their indictment.

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in finding probable cause for the filing of an Information against the petitioners for violation of PD 449.

Specifically, whether the appropriate legal basis was Section 5(e) (which permits cockfighting for the entertainment of tourists and balikbayans in playgrounds or parks) rather than Section 5(d) (which restricts cockfighting to licensed cockpits during local fiestas and other events under prescribed conditions).
Whether the holding of the cockfighting event—even if conducted in an unlicensed venue—was legally justified when intended for the entertainment of tourists and balikbayans during the town fiesta.