Case Summary (G.R. No. 155307)
Factual Background
The Department of Public Works and Highways entered into a contract for the proposed construction of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center Building (Phase I) on January 20, 1999, with Royson and Co., Inc., represented by respondent Manuel V. Roy. Excavation to a depth of sixty meters occurred on March 4, 1999, under the control and supervision of Project Director Engr. Arturo M. Santos. Petitioner, asserting ownership of adjacent land covered by TCT No. 31565, informed the contractor of concerns about erosion and requested hastening of slope protection work. Provisional slope protection measures were started, but unusually heavy rains on February 7, 2000 allegedly precipitated a landslide that produced cracks in the petitioner's house. Royson later constructed reinforced concrete slope protection, grouted riprap, and a retaining wall, but a collapse of the retaining wall of the BGHMC project occurred on June 8, 2000.
Administrative and Local Investigations
Petitioner sought relief from the DPWH Cordillera Administrative Region and from the Baguio City Mayor, prompting an investigation by the City Engineer and a memorandum from DPWH-CAR engineers dated March 23, 2000. The DPWH-CAR memorandum reported that the affected part of the lot claimed by petitioner was part of the BGH property as shown on an attached lot plan. The City Engineer’s findings included that the construction was not covered by a building and excavation permit, that portions of petitioner’s garage allegedly encroached upon BGH property, and that observed cracks and relative distances between the petitioner’s building and the retaining wall placed the main structure outside the critical slip circle.
Complaint Before the Ombudsman and Responses
Petitioner filed an affidavit-complaint before the Ombudsman alleging that respondents’ gross negligence, incompetence and malicious conduct in undertaking the BGHMC expansion caused undue injury in violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, and asserting loss in value of property previously worth P25 million. Respondent Teodoro Barrozo denied liability and maintained that the project was a national government undertaking beyond the control of the City Engineer. Respondent Jesus P. Cammayo averred that he had no participation in preparation, execution or approval of the contract and that he initiated provisional slope protection and a supplemental agreement for additional permanent measures; he attributed the collapse to unusually heavy rains, discovery of a pre-war tunnel which collapsed, and other events constituting force majeure. Respondent Manuel Factora denied participation in the contract and responsibility for construction oversight.
Ombudsman Resolution and Motion for Reconsideration
In a Resolution dated February 5, 2002, the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause to hold any respondent liable under Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, finding no evidence of manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence and concluding that the damage occurred on a portion of BGHMC property that petitioner allegedly encroached upon. The Ombudsman denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by Order dated June 27, 2002.
Petition to the Supreme Court and Issues Presented
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus before the Supreme Court, contending that the Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint. The principal legal question presented was whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in determining that there was no probable cause to charge respondents with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
Parties' Contentions
Petitioner argued that undisputed facts showed construction and excavation proceeded without necessary permits and that the collapse of the retaining wall and subsequent damage permitted an inference of negligence, aggravated by the fact that efforts to construct the retaining wall occurred only after damage had been caused. Petitioner challenged the Ombudsman’s reliance on DPWH-CAR engineers’ report that the damaged area was BGH property and disputed respondents’ claims of force majeure and due diligence. Respondents maintained that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion, argued absence of proof of actual damage or of manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, and explained that the contract procedures, supplemental agreement, and emergency measures undertaken demonstrated due diligence.
Standard of Review and Elements of Section 3(e)
The Court recalled that the determination of probable cause in preliminary investigation belongs to the Ombudsman, which is vested with exclusive power to investigate and prosecute, and that judicial interference is disfavored except upon a showing of grave abuse of discretion. The Court reiterated the elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019: the accused must be a public officer discharging official functions; the accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence; and the accused’s action must have caused undue injury or conferred unwarranted benefit. The Court summarized the stringent standard for grave abuse of discretion as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Findings
The Court examined the Ombudsman’s factual findings and the evidentiary record and concluded that the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion. The Court found substantial evidence supporting the Ombudsman’s conclusion that re
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 155307)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES, INC., REPRESENTED BY CESAR CALIMLIM AND LAILA BALOIS filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus seeking nullification of the Ombudsman’s Resolution dated February 5, 2002 and Order dated June 27, 2002 in OMB Case No. 0-01-0400.
- The Honorable Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause to charge respondents with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and denied reconsideration.
- Petitioners prayed that the Ombudsman be directed to file informations against respondents for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and sought issuance of a writ of mandamus.
- The respondent public officers included Jesus P. Cammayo, Arturo M. Santos, Manuel Factora, Teodoro Barrozo, and other DPWH and project officials, while the private contractor respondent was Manuel V. Roy of Royson and Co., Inc.
Key Facts
- The Department of Public Works and Highways entered into a contract dated January 20, 1999 for construction of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center Building (Phase I) with Royson and Co., Inc., and the contract was approved on January 29, 1999.
- An excavation of sixty meters deep was made on March 4, 1999 on the area under the supervision of Project Director Engr. Arturo M. Santos.
- Petitioner sent three letters through its representative Carolina Jimenez requesting expedient construction of a retaining wall and subsequent provisional slope protection measures were started.
- A landslide triggered by unusually heavy rains occurred on February 7, 2000 causing cracks in petitioner’s house and later a collapse of the substantially completed reinforced concrete slope protection and retaining wall on June 8, 2000.
- Petitioner alleged that its land covered by TCT No. 31565 had been damaged and valued before the incident at P25 million and that the collapse rendered the property danger-prone and virtually useless.
- The DPWH-CAR memorandum dated March 23, 2000 stated that the affected portion was part of the BGHMC property as shown by the lot plan.
- The Office of the City Engineer of Baguio found among other things that the project lacked building and excavation permits, that portions of petitioner’s garage allegedly encroached upon BGHMC property, and that observed cracks were several meters from petitioner’s main building.
Administrative Findings
- The Ombudsman found no probable cause to charge respondents with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 because there was no proof of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
- The Ombudsman credited respondents’ acts to implement emergency slope protection, the execution of a supplemental agreement providing additional slope protection, the installation of soil nails, and the hiring of a structural design specialist.
- The Ombudsman found that the collapse was attributable to unusually heavy rains, typhoon Feria, and the discovery and collapse of a pre-war tunnel under the site, which were events beyond respondents’ control.
- The Ombudsman relied on the DPWH-CAR memorandum and the City Engineer’s report indicating that the damaged area was within BGHMC property and that the complainant’s main structure lay outside the critical slip circle.