Case Digest (G.R. No. 177135)
Facts:
Arturo O. Radaza, Julito H. Cuizon, Fernando T. Taga-An, Jr., and Rogelio D. Veloso v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Special Nineteenth (19th) Division, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, Deputy Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago, Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), Norma R. Patalingjug and Crisologo Saavedra, G.R. No. 177135, October 15, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico‑Nazario, J., writing for the Court.In early 2007 the Philippines hosted the 12th ASEAN Summit in Cebu; preparations undertaken in 2006 included procurement and installation of decorative lamp posts and streetlights along ceremonial routes in Cebu, Mandaue and Lapu‑Lapu. Cause‑oriented groups sent a complaint dated January 9, 2007 to Virginia Palanca‑Santiago, Director of the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO) of the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) alleging overpricing; private complainant Crisologo Saavedra, a project manager for a bidder, later submitted supplemental evidence. PACPO prepared a Final Evaluation Report (23 March 2007) finding prima facie overpricing—prices in city Programs of Work and Estimates (POWEs) vastly exceeded supplier quotations—and recommended criminal and administrative charges.
An administrative complaint (Administrative Case No. OMB‑V‑A‑07‑0122‑C) followed; on March 29, 2007 Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez issued an Order placing the public officials named (including petitioners) under preventive suspension for six months pending investigation. Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with prayer for TRO/preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals (docketed CA‑G.R. SP No. 02615) on April 2, 2007, arguing lack of strong evidence, that the works were national DPWH projects, that suspension would not aid investigation, that their due process rights were violated, and that Section 261(x) of the Omnibus Election Code barred suspension during the election period without COMELEC approval; Radaza separately relied on the Arias doctrine re reliance on subordinates.
The Court of Appeals, in a Resolution dated April 2, 2007, denied petitioners’ prayer for a TRO; petitioners moved for reconsideration, and meanwhile the DILG implemented the Ombudsman’s suspension orders by memoranda (Radaza served April 3, 2007; Cuizon, Taga‑an and Veloso served April 4, 2007). Petitioners later withdrew Radaza’s participation in the high court petition after his re‑election and, on June 4, 2007, sought to withdraw the petition as to Radaza; on June 13, 2007 the Supreme Court allowed withdrawal insofar as Radaza was concerned and required comments from respondents on the remaining petition.
The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the CA petition as moot on January 24, 2008, noting Radaza’s re‑election and that the six‑month preventive suspension had lapsed. The Ombudsman (Visayas) promulgated a Decision on January 31, 2008 in Administrative Case No. OMB‑V‑A‑07‑0122‑C finding Cuizon, Taga‑an and Veloso guilty of grave misconduct and dismissing them from service. ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the petition before the Supreme Court is moot and academic, thus not justiciable.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to a temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to enjoin the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension on the ground that there was no strong evidence of guilt.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to injunctive relief on the ground that their continued exercise of office would not jeopardize or hamper the Ombudsman’s investigation.
- Whether petitioners were deprived of procedural due process when the Ombudsman summarily issued the preventive suspension order.
- Whether the preventive suspension’s six‑month length was unwarranted and arbitrary.
- Whether petitioner Radaza is protected by the doctrine in Arias v...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)