Case Digest (G.R. No. 155307)
Facts:
M.A. Jimenez Enterprises, Inc. v. The Honorable Ombudsman, Jesus P. Cammayo, et al., G.R. No. 155307, June 06, 2011, Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner M.A. Jimenez Enterprises, Inc. (represented by Cesar Calimlim and Laila Balois) owned land adjacent to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) expansion site. The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) contracted with private firm Royson and Co., Inc. (represented by respondent Manuel V. Roy) to construct the BGHMC Phase I building; the contract was approved in January 1999 and excavation followed. Project supervision involved DPWH officials including respondent Jesus P. Cammayo (then Assistant Secretary, DPWH) and Project Director Arturo M. Santos; respondent Teodoro Barrozo was then City Engineer of Baguio, and respondent Manuel Factora was Medical Center Chief of BGHMC.
During excavation petitioner sent letters to the contractor urging protection works; provisional slope protection was installed but, on February 7, 2000, heavy rains caused a landslide that allegedly damaged petitioner’s property. DPWH-Cordillera (DPWH-CAR) engineers and the Baguio City Engineer investigated: the DPWH-CAR memo (March 23, 2000) stated the affected portion was part of the BGHMC property, while the City Engineer reported lack of building/excavation permits, observed cracking and possible encroachment, and measured distances between the retaining wall and petitioner’s building. Royson proceeded to install reinforced concrete slope protection, grouted riprap and a retaining wall, but on June 8, 2000 a portion of the retaining wall collapsed.
Petitioner filed an Affidavit‑Complaint (May 8, 2001) before the Office of the Ombudsman alleging respondents’ manifest partiality, evident bad faith and/or gross inexcusable negligence in violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and sought administrative/criminal action; petitioner also filed a civil suit in the RTC, Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-01-43224). Respondents filed counter‑affidavits: Barrozo denied City control over the national project; Cammayo disavowed direct participation in contract approval, averred provisional measures and a December 9, 1999 supplemental agreement for additional protections were put in place, and attributed the collapse to unusually heavy rains, Typhoon Feria and the collapse of a previously undetected pre‑war tunnel (force majeure); Factora denied involvement in the contract.
The Ombudsman, in a Resolution dated February 5, 2002, found no probable cause to charge any respondent under Section 3(e) R.A. No. 301...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing petitioner’s complaint?
- Were the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019—manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, and resulting undue injury—established by petitioner?
- Is a writ of mandamus appropriate to compel the Ombudsman to file in...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)