Case Digest (G.R. No. 198201)
Facts:
In Office of the Ombudsman v. Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte, et al. (G.R. Nos. 198201 & 198334, March 15, 2023), the Office of the Ombudsman (Petitioner) and Representative Prospero C. Nograles separately sought review of a Court of Appeals decision that exonerated Davao City officials—Mayor Rodrigo R. Duterte, City Administrator Wendel E. Avisado, City Engineer Jose D. Gestuveo, Jr., City Legal Officers Elmer B. RaAo and J. Melchor Quitain, and Chief Yusop A. Jimlani (Respondents)—from simple misconduct for the summary demolition of a canal cover (the “Canal-Cover Project”) allegedly funded by the national government and constructed in February 2006 along Quezon Boulevard, Davao City. After flooding issues emerged in early 2008, the City Engineer’s Office, supported by legal opinions from Atty. RaAo and Atty. Quitain, declared the structure a nuisance per se and notified the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) of plans to demolish it. The cover was torn down on October 20Case Digest (G.R. No. 198201)
Facts:
- Canal-Cover Project and Flooding
- Initiated by Rep. Prospero C. Nograles in Quezon Boulevard, Davao City to prevent accidents, garbage clogging and foul odors; completed on February 16, 2006 with park improvement.
- Concrete cover impeded dredging, causing frequent flooding; Davao City informed DPWH in early 2008, which created manholes but flooding persisted.
- Legal Opinions and Demolition
- April 17, 2008: City Engineer’s Office notified DPWH of plan to remove concrete flooring.
- September 17, 2008: City Legal Officers RaAo and Quitain declared the cover a public nuisance per se and urged summary demolition.
- October 16–20, 2008: City Engineer Gestuveo advised DPWH District Engineer of planned demolition; demolition proceeded.
- November 12, 2008: Justice Secretary Gonzales opined that structures lacking permits may be legalized and that DPWH must determine nuisance per se status following procedural orders.
- Administrative and Judicial Proceedings
- Representative Nograles filed with Ombudsman:
- Grave abuse complaint against Gestuveo, Avisado, Jimlani.
- Grave misconduct complaint against Mayor Duterte, Avisado, Gestuveo, RaAo, Quitain, Jimlani.
- April 21, 2010: Ombudsman found respondents guilty of “simple neglect of duty,” later corrected to “simple misconduct,” imposing six-month suspension.
- August 4, 2010: Court of Appeals (CA) issued preliminary injunction staying execution of suspension.
- January 28, 2011: CA held respondents not guilty of simple misconduct, ruled no permit required since city engineer acted as building official, made injunction permanent.
- August 9, 2011: CA denied motions for reconsideration; Ombudsman and Nograles filed petitions for certiorari with SC (G.R. Nos. 198201, 198334), consolidated November 28, 2011.
Issues:
- Presidential Immunity
- Whether the petitions should be dismissed under the doctrine of presidential immunity.
- Simple Misconduct Liability
- Whether respondents committed simple misconduct by demolishing the national-funded project without complying with IRR-NBC Section 216 procedure.
- Issuance of Preliminary Injunction
- Whether the CA erred in issuing a writ of preliminary injunction to stay execution of the Ombudsman’s decision.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)