Facts:

• Petitioner, Peter C. Chua Lao, filed a petition for certiorari to challenge the resolution of the Ombudsman dismissing his charges against the building officials and private respondents for alleged violation of anti-graft laws and the Revised Penal Code.
• The petitioner claimed that the respondents' approval of a building permit for the construction of a commercial building by the private respondents, despite alleged errors in the plan and specifications, constituted intentional violations of the law.
• Peter Chua Lao is the owner of RC Building in Quezon City, while the private respondents are the owners of a property adjacent to petitioner's building.
• On September 23, 1994, the Office of the Building Official (OBO) issued a building permit to the private respondents for the construction of a 4-storey commercial building.
• During the construction, the private respondents discovered that the 5th and 6th floors of petitioner's building encroached on their property by 0.40 centimeters.
• The private respondents filed a complaint against the petitioner for illegal encroachment, while the petitioner filed a complaint for the revocation of the private respondents' building permit.
• On June 26, 1995, the City Engineer issued a resolution ordering the petitioner to rectify the encroachment on the private respondents' property.
• The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied.
• The petitioner then appealed to the Department of Public Works and Highways.
• During the pendency of the appeal, he filed a criminal complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against the respondents for violation of anti-graft laws and the Revised Penal Code.
• On April 2, 1997, the Department of Public Works and Highways issued a resolution in favor of the petitioner, declaring the OBO's decision null and void and advising the OBO to initiate an investigation on both parties' buildings for violation of the National Building Code.
• On November 21, 1997, the Ombudsman dismissed the charges filed by the petitioner against the respondents for lack of probable cause.
• The Ombudsman's decision was affirmed in a subsequent order denying the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The Ombudsman's dismissal of the charges was proper because there was no showing that the respondents' acts were motivated by bad faith.
• The approval of the building permit, despite alleged errors in the plan and specifications, c...(Unlock)