Title
Barata vs. Abalos, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 142888
Decision Date
Jun 6, 2001
A homeowners' association filed an administrative complaint against a mayor for failing to complete a housing project. The Ombudsman dismissed the case, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision, ruling it final and unappealable, with the petition filed out of time.
violation
certiorari
final decision

Case Summary (G.R. No. 142888)

Factual Background

Petitioner led the San Miguel Bukid Homeowners’ Association, Inc., whose members occupied a parcel of land in Mandaluyong City that the City Government undertook to develop into medium-size condominiums and row houses beginning in March 1995. Members vacated the area to allow construction, which was represented to be completed within 540 days from June 1995. When construction did not proceed to completion, petitioner and association members demanded completion from then Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Sr., without success. Upon the assumption of office by Benjamin Abalos, Jr., they renewed their demands. Alleging that the new mayor likewise failed to act promptly on their letters and requests, petitioner filed an administrative complaint on May 17, 1999 against Benjamin Abalos, Jr. for alleged violation of Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713, which requires prompt action on public requests.

Administrative Proceedings and Ombudsman Rulings

The Office of the Ombudsman investigated the complaint and rendered a decision dated July 21, 1999 dismissing the administrative complaint “for insufficiency of evidence.” Petitioner sought reconsideration, which the Ombudsman denied in an order dated September 10, 1999. The denial was received by petitioner on October 15, 1999. The Ombudsman’s procedural rules, promulgated in Administrative Order No. 7, specifically Section 7, Rule III, provide that where the respondent is absolved of the charge the decision is final and unappealable, and that in other administrative cases a decision becomes final after ten days unless a motion for reconsideration or a petition for certiorari is filed as prescribed in Section 27 of R.A. 6770.

Prior Judicial Filings and Procedural History

Petitioner first sought relief by filing a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court on November 4, 1999 in G.R. No. 140272. The Second Division denied that petition by resolution dated November 24, 1999, relying on A.M. No. 99-2-02-SC and the Court’s ruling in Fabian v. Desierto, which confined appellate review of Ombudsman administrative decisions to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43. Having received that resolution on January 18, 2000, petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Court of Appeals on February 1, 2000. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition in a decision dated April 10, 2000 on the grounds that the Ombudsman’s decision exonerating the mayor is not appealable and, alternatively, that the petition was filed out of time.

Issues Presented

The petition to the Supreme Court raised a single principal question: whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that the Ombudsman’s decision exonerating Benjamin Abalos, Jr. is not appealable. Ancillary questions included whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding the petition to that court untimely and whether Section 5(a) of R.A. 6713 required further examination on the merits.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner contended that decisions of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases are appealable to a court of review and that the holding in Fabian v. Desierto required that such appeals lie to the Court of Appeals; he argued that the Ombudsman and the Court of Appeals erred in denying appellate review of the exonerating decision. Benjamin Abalos, Jr. and the Office of the Ombudsman, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintained that under Section 7, Rule III of Administrative Order No. 7 a decision absolving a respondent is immediately final and unappealable. Respondents additionally argued that, even if appeal were permitted, petitioner’s recourse was time-barred because petitioner received the denial of reconsideration on October 15, 1999 and thus had ten days under Section 27 of R.A. 6770 or up to an additional thirty days under the applicable rules to file an appeal, but did not file until February 1, 2000. The Ombudsman further relied on Lapid v. Court of Appeals for the proposition that Fabian invalidated only the portion of Section 27 that designated the Supreme Court as the appellate forum and did not otherwise disturb the finality provisions contained in Section 27.

Court’s Analysis of Finality and Forum

The Court examined Section 27 of R.A. 6770 and the Ombudsman’s procedural rule and concluded that Section 27 expressly makes final and unappealable any decision imposing only public censure, reprimand, or suspension of not more than one month, and that the provision in Section 27 which purported to allow direct appeals to the Supreme Court was invalidated by Fabian v. Desierto insofar as it increased this Court’s appellate jurisdiction in violation of Section 30, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution. The Court observed that Fabian’s effect was to require that appeals from Ombudsman administrative disciplinary decisions be brought to the Court of Appeals under Rule 43, and that Fabian did not disturb the other aspects of Section 27, including its provisions on finality. The Court further found that Administrative Order No. 7, Section 7, Rule III validly declared that decisions absolving a respondent are final and unappealable, and that such a declaration is implicit in Section 27 and permissible under the Ombudsman’s rulemaking authority.

Timeliness of the Appeal

The Court addressed the alternative ground relied upon by the Court of Appeals and respondents, namely, that petitioner’s petition to the Court of Appeals was filed out of time. The Court agreed with respondents that petitioner received the denial of the motion for reconsideration on October 15, 1999 and therefore, even assuming an appeal were allowable, petitioner had until October 25, 1999 to seek judicial review under Section 27 of R.A. 6770, or until November 24, 1999 if he availed himself of the thir

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms