Title
Carpio-Morales vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 217126-27
Decision Date
Nov 10, 2015
Ombudsman challenged CA's TRO and WPI against preventive suspension of Makati Mayor Binay, Jr. over alleged graft in city hall construction. SC ruled in favor of Ombudsman, upholding suspension and rejecting condonation doctrine.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 160451)

Administrative Investigation and Suspension

Following a fact-finding probe into alleged anomalous procurements for the Makati City Hall Parking Building, the Ombudsman’s Special Panel filed six administrative and six criminal complaints against Binay, Jr. on March 5, 2015. On March 10, 2015, the Ombudsman suspend­ed him and others for up to six months without pay, finding (1) strong evidence of guilt and (2) that the offenses involved grave misconduct warranting removal or risked prejudicing the investigation.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Binay, Jr. petitioned the CA for certiorari to nullify the suspension order and sought TRO/WPI. He argued that (a) the condonation doctrine barred administrative liability for acts committed in the prior term, and (b) evidence of guilt was not strong. The CA granted a 60-day TRO (March 16, 2015) and later a WPI (April 6, 2015), relying on jurisprudence invoking condonation to protect the electorate’s choice.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the Ombudsman’s recourse to certiorari was proper.
  2. CA’s subject-matter jurisdiction over TRO/WPI against an Ombudsman order.
  3. Validity of RA 6770 Sec. 14’s bar on injunctions.
  4. Whether the CA gravely abused discretion by applying condonation.
  5. Legality of the CA’s directive for the Ombudsman to comment on a contempt petition.

Constitutional and Statutory Framework

• 1987 Constitution: Public office is a public trust (Art. II, Sec. 27; Art. XI, Sec. 1); Ombudsman’s independence (Art. XI, Sec. 5); judicial power includes injunctive remedies (Art. VIII, Secs. 1–2, 5).
• RA 6770 Sec. 14(1): “No writ of injunction…to delay an investigation…unless prima facie evidence of lack of jurisdiction”; Sec. 14(2): “No court shall hear any appeal or application for remedy…except the Supreme Court, on pure questions of law.”
• RA 6770 Sec. 24: Preventive suspension requisites—strong evidence of guilt plus (a) grave misconduct, (b) removal-warranting charge, or (c) risk of prejudice to the case.

Supreme Court’s Analysis on CA Jurisdiction

The CA derives certiorari and prohibition jurisdiction under BP 129 Sec. 9(1) and inherent powers to issue auxiliary writs (Rule 58; Rule 135 Sec. 6). Provisional reliefs preserve the status quo and are ancillary to main actions. Congress’s attempt in RA 6770 Sec. 14 to bar all injunctions by lower courts intrudes on the Supreme Court’s exclusive rule-making for procedural remedies (Art. VIII, Sec. 5(5)) and infringes the separation of powers.

Unconstitutionality of RA 6770 Sec. 14

• Sec. 14(2) conflicts with Rule 45 and Fabian v. Desierto, as it limits remedies to Supreme Court appeals on pure questions of law and improperly exempts Ombudsman “findings.” It effected an unconstitutional expansion of the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction without its concurrence.
• Sec. 14(1) unduly restricts courts’ inherent authority to issue TRO/WPI under procedural rules. Until the Court adopts any injunction bar via its own rule-making, Sec. 14(1) is declared ineffective.

Rejection of the Condonation Doctrine

Tracing condonation from Pascual v. Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija (1959), the Court finds no constitutional or statutory support under the 1987 Constitution’s public-trust and accountability mandates, or under the Local Government Code’s discipline provisions. Election cannot erase administrative liability for prior-term misconduct. The doctrine is therefore prosp

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms