Case Digest (G.R. No. 219501)
Facts:
Police Director General Alan La Madrid Purisima v. Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales, G.R. No. 219501, July 26, 2017, Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Alan La Madrid Purisima (then PNP Chief) assailed the Court of Appeals Decision in CA‑G.R. SP No. 138296 and CA‑G.R. SP No. 138722 that affirmed an Ombudsman Order preventively suspending him for six months during administrative and criminal investigations concerning the PNP’s accreditation of WER FAST Documentary Agency, Inc. as a courier for firearms licenses.
In 2011 the PNP and WER FAST entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (not procured by public bidding) under which the PNP would allow WER FAST to deliver firearms license cards while WER FAST would donate online-application equipment. The FEO Chief Estilles signed the MOA; the incumbent PNP Chief approved its signing on August 24, 2011. The PNP Legal Service later recommended rules for accreditation. In November 2012 the FEO Courier Services Accreditation Board was constituted and an Accreditation Policy was issued setting documentary and operational criteria for accreditation.
On December 18, 2012 Purisima became PNP Chief. On February 12, 2013 CSG Director Gil Meneses sent a memorandum to Purisima stating that the CSG had accredited WER FAST and recommending that courier delivery of firearms licenses be made mandatory; Purisima approved on February 17, 2013. The Accreditation Board issued Resolution No. 2013‑027 accrediting WER FAST on April 1, 2013. Records later showed WER FAST lacked DOTC accreditation, lacked required paid‑up capital, had Articles of Incorporation reflecting consultancy services rather than courier services, and had no proven courier track record.
In 2014 two complaints were filed with the Office of the Ombudsman: a private complaint and a Fact‑Finding Investigation Bureau (FFIB) complaint, charging Purisima and other PNP officials and WER FAST with violations including RA Nos. 6713, 3019, 7080 and 9184, and administrative gross neglect of duty; FFIB sought preventive suspension of Purisima. Although Purisima sought more time to file his counter‑affidavit, on December 3, 2014 the Ombudsman issued an Order preventively suspending Purisima and other respondents without pay for up to six months.
Purisima and another suspended official filed petitions for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which consolidated the cases. While the CA proceedings were pending Purisima resigned and the six‑month suspension period lapsed. In a Decision dated July 29, 2015 the CA dismissed the petitions as moot because the suspension period had lapsed but nonetheless ruled on the merits and affirmed the Ombudsma...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the petition rendered moot and academic by the lapse of the six‑month preventive suspension period?
- If not moot, did the Ombudsman gravely abuse her discretion in issuing the December 3, 2014 preventive suspension order ag...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)