A.C. No. 8335 - Ceniza vs. Ceniza, Jr.

In 2004, the provincial government of Bataan caused the tax delinquency sale of the properties of Sunrise Paper Products Industries, Inc.
With no competing bidder at the public auction, the province acquired a paper plant (with its machineries and equipment) and the land parcels where it was erected.
Sunrise filed a petition for injunction on April 21, 2005 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bataan to annul the auction sale and to prevent the province from consolidating title over the properties.
During the pendency of the case, other creditors of Sunrise intervened in the proceedings.

On June 14, 2005, the province (represented by the governor) and Sunrise entered into a compromise agreement, which was unanimously approved by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
The parties later moved for the dismissal of the civil case on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because of non-compliance with Section 267 of Republic Act No. 7160 (the Local Government Code).
The trial court, however, refused the dismissal and on June 15, 2007 issued a decision declaring the auction sale invalid, the transfer of titles in the province’s name as based on falsified documents, and the compromise agreement as illegal.

In a pending case (G.R. No. 181311) before the Supreme Court, the province questioned the trial court’s ruling, leading to the issuance of a status quo order restraining its implementation.
Based on the June 15, 2007 decision of the trial court, private respondents—utilizing the ruling as a basis—filed a complaint-affidavit before the Office of the Ombudsman on January 22, 2008.
The complaint charged petitioners with violations including acts under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, falsification of public documents, serious illegal detention, malversation, and plunder.
On October 28, 2008, the Ombudsman issued an order (OMB-L-A-08-0039-A) for the preventive suspension of petitioners for six months without pay, pending the administrative adjudication of the case.

Alarmed by the preventive suspension and the immediacy of the Ombudsman’s order, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with an urgent prayer for injunctive relief before the Court of Appeals (CA) on November 10, 2008 (docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 106026).
On November 14, 2008, the CA issued a resolution deferring action on petitioners’ application for injunctive relief by ordering respondents to file their comment within ten days, after which petitioners could reply within five days.
Fearing the implementation of the Ombudsman’s order, petitioners also instituted the instant petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus before the Supreme Court, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction.
On November 19, 2008, the Supreme Court granted a TRO enjoining the implementation of the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order pending further orders from the Court.

Petitioners questioned the validity of the preventive suspension order on several grounds, including that:

The acts charged occurred during petitioners’ previous term in office (which would render them ineligible for administrative charges).
The complaint-affidavit lacked supporting evidence and was based solely on the trial court’s decision (which itself was under review).
The trial court lacked jurisdiction in issuing its decision and the preventive suspension order was politically motivated.

Petitioners argued that the CA’s deferment of action on their injunctive relief application effectively rendered the remedy moot and endangered their rights as elected officials.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deferring action on the petitioners’ application for injunctive relief by requiring respondents to first file their comments.
Whether such deferment resulted in the ineffective protection of petitioners’ rights in the face of an immediately executory Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order.

Whether the direct elevation of the petition to the Supreme Court via a certiorari remedy is proper despite the absence of a prior motion for reconsideration with the CA.
Whether the petition qualifies for the exceptions that justify bypassing the precondition of filing a motion for reconsideration under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Whether, given the extreme urgency and overriding public interest in preserving the status quo (and ensuring the proper conduct of investigations), the relief sought by petitioners should have been granted immediately.
Whether injunctive relief in this case is appropriate to prevent irreparable injury to petitioners, particularly in light of the potential deprivation of the electorate’s chosen representative.