G.R. No. 225565 - Camp John Hay Development Corp. vs. Office of the Ombudsman

On October 19, 1996, CJH Development entered into a Lease Agreement with BCDA for 246.99 hectares within the John Hay Special Economic Zone for 25 years (renewable for another 25 years).
The Lease Agreement provided that CJH Development’s obligation was to develop the leased area into a family-oriented tourism complex in exchange for enjoying a preferential tax rate.
Following changes in the legal and fiscal context (notably after a Supreme Court decision invalidating certain incentives), CJH Development incurred the normal tax rate which allegedly affected its projects.
Subsequent Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) in 2000 and 2003 were executed to adjust and restructure the lease period and installment payments.
On July 1, 2008, the parties entered into a Restructuring Memorandum of Agreement (RMOA) wherein CJH Development acknowledged prior rental obligations amounting to approximately PHP2.69 billion and agreed on a scheme of cash payment, dacion en pago, and installment payments with interest over fifteen years.

The RMOA included the creation of a One-Stop Action Center (OSAC) by BCDA to expedite the issuance of various permits and licenses within 30 days from complete submission of requirements.
CJH Development alleged that BCDA’s failure to fully operationalize the OSAC caused delays in permit issuance, adversely affecting its project implementation and resulting in “unrealized profits.”
In response, BCDA and its officials maintained that the OSAC had been functioning since 2005 and that any delay was due to petitioner’s incomplete submission of documentary requirements.
Additional contractual disputes arose concerning alleged breaches such as improper dacion, unauthorized assignment of subcontracting rights, and other alleged operate violations committed by CJH Development against the agreed terms.

On July 4, 2012, CJH Development filed a Complaint-Affidavit before the Ombudsman alleging violations of Section 3(e) and (f) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713 against BCDA officials.
CJH Development asserted that BCDA officials had unjustly refused to perform their obligation of timely permit issuance through the OSAC, engaged in discriminatory practices, and even filed a baseless complaint for estafa as well as published malicious statements.
In their Joint Counter-Affidavits, the respondents (including BCDA officials) contended that all delays were attributable to the petitioner’s own failure to submit the required documents and that the OSAC had been operational since 2005.
The Ombudsman, in its Joint Resolution dated January 15, 2016, dismissed the Complaint-Affidavit for lack of probable cause.
CJH Development’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on April 13, 2016, prompting the filing of the Petition for Certiorari in July 2016.

CJH Development challenged the dismissal by alleging that BCDA’s inaction and refusal to alter the payment schedule or form a joint committee amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
Respondents argued that the petition was either improperly filed or lacked merit because the petitioner had not shown compelling evidence that the Ombudsman’s dismissal was tainted by manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross negligence.
Both parties filed various comments and counter-comments, with respondent Desierto and the group of BCDA officials emphasizing adherence to the contract and the proper functioning of the OSAC.

Whether the Petition for Certiorari was correctly filed before the Supreme Court instead of the Court of Appeals, especially considering the procedural rules governing appeals in criminal versus administrative cases.

Whether the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion by dismissing CJH Development’s Complaint-Affidavit for lack of probable cause under Section 3(e) and (f) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713.

Whether BCDA’s action (or inaction) concerning the issuance of permits via the OSAC, as well as the refusal to restructure the payment schedule, amounted to a breach of the RMOA.
Whether the alleged delay in issuing permits and the refusal to establish a joint committee resulted in demonstrable undue injury to petitioner.

Whether the express stipulations on the issuance of permits and the fixed payment structure under the RMOA bind the parties, thereby negating any unilateral modification by CJH Development.