Case Digest (G.R. No. 172553)
Facts:
Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, Honorable Victor C. Fernandez, in his capacity as Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, and the General Investigation Bureau‑A, represented by Maria Olivia Elena A. Roxas v. Jesus D. Francisco, Sr., G.R. No. 172553, December 14, 2011, Supreme Court First Division, Leonardo‑De Castro, J., writing for the Court.The petitioners are the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (through Director Joaquin F. Salazar and Deputy Ombudsman Victor C. Fernandez) and its General Investigation Bureau‑A; the respondent is Jesus D. Francisco, Sr., then Municipal Planning and Development Officer of Bacoor, Cavite.
In November 1998, Ligorio Naval filed Administrative Case OMB‑1‑98‑2365 before the Office of the Ombudsman against Mayor Jessie Castillo and others, alleging that the municipal hall contract was awarded to St. Martha’s Trading and General Contractors although the contractor was allegedly unqualified (expired license and lower category). On April 29, 1999, the Ombudsman dismissed Naval’s complaint; reconsideration was denied on August 27, 1999. Naval thereafter sought further review, prompting Deputy Ombudsman Margarito Gervacio, Jr. to order reevaluation. A graft investigator recommended reviving and re‑docketing the matter; that led to the filing by the Fact‑Finding and Intelligence Bureau of Administrative Case OMB‑C‑A‑05‑0032‑A against five members of the Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC), including Francisco, charging gross negligence and conduct prejudicial to the service.
On May 30, 2005, Director Salazar issued an Order preventively suspending Francisco and his co‑respondents pursuant to Section 24, R.A. No. 6770 and Section 9, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7; Deputy Ombudsman Fernandez approved the Order the following day. Francisco received the Order on July 1, 2005 and filed on July 22, 2005 a petition for certiorari with an application for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated December 23, 2005, granted Francisco’s petition and set aside the May 30, 2005 preventive suspension order, reasoning that the matters in OMB‑C‑A‑05‑0032‑A were barred by res judicata because the earlier OMB‑1‑98‑2365 had been finally dismissed. A motion for reconsideration by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman was denied by the CA in a Resolution dated May 3, 2006.
The petitioners (through the OSG) filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 on June 26, 2006 to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of the CA rulings. After pleadings and memoranda, it appeared that the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon had itself subsequently terminated Administrative Case No. OMB‑C‑A‑05‑0032‑A by a Joint Resolution approved by the Acting Ombudsman ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari rendered moot and academic by the expiration of the preventive suspension period and the subsequent dismissal of Administrative Case No. OMB‑C‑A‑05‑0032‑A?
- If not moot, did the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in ordering preventive suspension, and did the Court of Appeals err in setting aside the sus...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)