G.R. No. 155307 - M.A. Jimenez Enterprises, Inc. vs. Ombudsman

On January 20, 1999, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) entered into a contract for the construction of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) Building (Phase I) with Royson and Co., Inc., represented by its President, Manuel V. Roy.
The contract was approved by DPWH Secretary Gregorio R. Vigilar on January 29, 1999, and construction commenced thereafter.
Petitioner, represented by Carolina Jimenez initially, sent three letters to Royson on March 4, 1999, requesting the prompt construction of a retaining wall due to concerns that its adjacent property was at risk of erosion.

During the excavation of a sixty-meter deep site under the supervision of Project Director Engr. Arturo M. Santos, heavy rains in February 2000 led to the collapse of a portion of the provisional slope protection installed to safeguard the area.
The landslide, which occurred on February 7, 2000, resulted in reported cracks and alleged structural damage to the petitioner’s house.
Petitioner asserted that the landslide and its resultant damage were due to the respondents’ inexcusable negligence and failure to secure necessary building and excavation permits.

Upon receiving the complaint, the DPWH-CAR office and the City Engineer of Baguio conducted investigations.

The DPWH-CAR engineers, in a Memorandum dated March 23, 2000, clarified that the affected portion of the lot was part of the BGHMC property.
The City Engineer’s report noted various issues including lack of proper permits for excavation, alleged encroachment of the petitioner’s garage onto BGHMC property, and the proximity of the retaining wall to the petitioner’s building.

Royson and other respondents subsequently implemented remedial measures by constructing reinforced concrete slope protection, grouted riprap, and a retaining wall.
However, on June 8, 2000, the retaining wall for the BGHMC project collapsed, further exacerbating the situation and prompting the petitioner to file an Affidavit-Complaint against all respondents before the Office of the Ombudsman.

Petitioner alleged that the damage (valued initially at P25 million and rendered almost useless due to erosion) was a direct result of gross negligence, incompetence, and malicious conduct by the respondents in their official capacities.
Specific allegations included:

The undertaking of construction and excavation without requisite permits and proper soil analysis.
The post-damage initiation of measures to construct a retaining wall and other slope protection only after petitioner’s property was harmed.

Respondents, including individuals from DPWH, BGHMC, and the Office of the Ombudsman, filed Counter-Affidavits claiming:

Their limited control over permit requirements and the nature of the project.
That remedial measures (such as provisional slope protection) and subsequent emergency actions were timely and appropriate.
That the collapse was due to force majeure events (unusually heavy rains, typhoon Feria, and an unforeseen pre-war tunnel collapse) beyond their control.

On February 5, 2002, the Ombudsman issued a Resolution dismissing the complaint, finding insufficient evidence to charge any of the respondents with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
On June 27, 2002, the Ombudsman denied the petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the petitioner later filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus challenging the Ombudsman’s Resolution and Order, asserting that the actions of the respondents and the omission of necessary permits amounted to gross inexcusable negligence.

Whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by dismissing the complaint against the respondents.
Whether there exists sufficient probable cause to charge the respondents under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, particularly in light of allegations of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence in the construction of the BGHMC expansion project.
Whether the acts (or omissions) of the respondents, including failure to secure proper permits and undertaking remedial construction measures post-damage, directly caused undue injury to the petitioner’s property or improperly benefited any private party.