Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals

Facts:

Conchita Carpio Morales, in Her Capacity as the Ombudsman, Petitioner, v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., Respondents, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015, the Supreme Court En Banc, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.

Petitioner Conchita Carpio Morales (the Ombudsman) sought relief in this Court by a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed March 25, 2015 (with urgent prayer for TRO/WPI), challenging two Court of Appeals (CA) resolutions: the CA’s March 16, 2015 resolution (CA‑G.R. SP No. 139453) that granted private respondent Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr. (Binay, Jr.) a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining implementation of an Ombudsman preventive suspension order, and the CA’s March 20, 2015 resolution ordering the Ombudsman to comment on Binay, Jr.’s petition for contempt (CA‑G.R. SP No. 139504). After the CA issued a writ of preliminary injunction (WPI) on April 6, 2015 further enjoining the preventive suspension, the Ombudsman filed a supplemental petition before the Supreme Court.

The underlying administrative and fact chronology began with a complaint filed July 22, 2014 before the Ombudsman against Binay, Jr. and other Makati officials alleging Plunder and graft (RA 3019) in connection with the Makati City Hall Parking Building procurement and construction. The Ombudsman constituted a Special Panel of Investigators (first panel) and, on March 5, 2015, the panel filed administrative and criminal complaints. A second Special Panel was created March 6, 2015 to conduct preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication; on March 9 it required respondents to file counter-affidavits. Before counter‑affidavits were filed, the Ombudsman issued on March 10, 2015 a joint preventive suspension order (not more than six months without pay) against Binay, Jr. and others, finding the requisites under Section 24, RA 6770 present (evidence of guilt strong; charges of grave misconduct/serious dishonesty; risk of prejudice to the investigation). A copy was delivered to Makati City Hall on March 11 and the Vice Mayor assumed as Acting Mayor that day.

Binay, Jr. filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari before the CA (CA‑G.R. SP No. 139453) seeking nullification of the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension and praying for a TRO/WPI, invoking the condonation doctrine as an affirmative defense (re‑election condones prior administrative acts) and asserting lack of strong evidence. The CA issued a TRO on March 16, 2015 and later a WPI on April 6, 2015, relying principally on precedents applying the condonation doctrine (e.g., Aguinaldo v. Santos, Salalima v. Guingona, Mayor Garcia v. Mojica, and Governor Garcia, Jr. v. CA). Binay, Jr. also filed a petition for contempt (CA‑G.R. SP No. 139504) claiming respondents, including the Ombudsman and DILG, disregarded the CA TRO; the CA ordered consolidation and directed the Ombudsman to comment.

The Ombudsman then filed the present petition directly with the Supreme Court, asserting: (a) the CA lacked jurisdiction to enjoin an Ombudsman investigation under Section 14, RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act); and (b) the CA’s order to comment on contempt was improper because the Ombudsman is an impeachable officer. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments (April 14 and 21, 2015), received memoranda, and later supplemental pleadings. After the CA’s issuance of a WPI and following the Ombudsman’s supplemental petition, the Supreme Court resolve...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is the Ombudsman’s direct petition to the Supreme Court the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, or should she have filed motions for reconsideration first in the CA (procedural issue)?

• Did the Court of Appeals have subject‑matter jurisdiction over Binay, Jr.’s Rule 65 petition in CA‑G.R. SP No. 139453?

• May the Court of Appeals issue a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the implementation of a preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman?

• Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing the TRO and WPI in CA‑G.R. SP No. 139453 based on the condonation doctrine?

• Was the CA’s March 20, 2015 directive ordering the Ombudsman to comment on Binay, Jr.’s petition fo...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)