G.R. No. 174826 - Office of the Ombudsman vs. Espiritu

The petitioner, Office of the Ombudsman, initiated administrative proceedings against respondent Engr. Alfonso P. Espiritu, the City Engineer and Building Official of Marikina City.
The case arose from a complaint filed by Archie L. Huevos, a licensed building contractor doing business as A.H. Construction and General Services, against respondent.
The dispute centers on the issuance of a building permit for a project at the DOH-Amang Rodriguez Medical Center (DOH-ARMC) in Marikina City following a contract executed between A.H. Construction and the Department of Health.

On 4 June 1997, a contract was executed between A.H. Construction and the Department of Health for the construction of a three-storey dormitory and supply services building at the DOH-ARMC.
Adjustments to the building plans were made, and DOH-ARMC subsequently applied for a demolition permit which was issued on 17 April 2000.
On 24 April 2000, DOH-ARMC filed an application for a building permit with the office headed by respondent.
Huevos followed up on the pending application through letters dated 30 August 2000 and 4 September 2000.

In a letter dated 7 September 2000, respondent explained his refusal to act on the building permit application by citing:

A previous violation by A.H. Construction when a structure was built without the proper permit and in contravention of the National Building Code (Presidential Decree No. 1096).
The negative impact of the illegal structure on a road widening project, which had led to continuous complaints and an order for demolition.
The existence of components in the master plan (a waste water plant and an incinerator) that did not conform to Marikina City policies.
The fact that A.H. Construction had been blacklisted by the city government due to numerous violations.

A.H. Construction had appealed respondent’s action before the Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

On 14 September 2001, DPWH Secretary Simeon Datumanong ruled that the appeal was meritorious and advised that DOH-ARMC should refile its application for a building permit upon full compliance with all requirements.
Consequently, DOH-ARMC refiled its application on 3 October 2001.
Respondent, in processing the refiled application, required DOH-ARMC to submit the renewed business permit of A.H. Construction, as communicated in a letter dated 28 November 2001.

On 4 June 2002, Huevos filed a complaint-affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman for Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service against respondent.
Respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations, maintaining that his inaction was justified and not tainted with grave abuse of discretion.
On 16 January 2003, the Ombudsman rendered a Decision finding respondent administratively liable and imposed a suspension of six months and one day without pay.
Respondent filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied on 21 January 2004.

Respondent appealed the Ombudsman's Decision, and on 5 August 2005, the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order, halting the implementation of the Ombudsman's Decision.
On 5 January 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision annulling the Ombudsman's decision and order, and dismissed the complaint against respondent.
The Court's resolution, dated 21 September 2006, denied the motions for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Ombudsman and Huevos.

Whether the non-issuance of the building permit applied for by DOH-ARMC by respondent constituted Conduct Grossly Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

Whether all the requirements for the issuance of a building permit were complied with by the applicant.
Whether respondent’s act of withholding the issuance of the building permit was based on his personal bias or was a mere enforcement of the applicable laws, rules, and local government policies.
Whether the additional requirement (i.e., submission of the contractor’s renewed business permit) imposed by the City Government of Marikina was valid and reasonable under the law.

Whether there was substantial evidence supporting the initial finding of administrative liability against respondent.
Whether the actions and instructions from the DPWH, which directed the issuance of the permit upon full compliance, were duly considered in light of the local government’s additional requirements.