Case Summary (G.R. No. 201643)
Background of the Case
The case originated from a Complaint-Affidavit lodged by Joselito P. Fangon, Acting Director of the General Investigation Bureau of the Ombudsman, against Jose T. Capulong. The complaint alleged multiple violations, including failure to file the required Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs) for specific years, failure to disclose his wife's business interests in two corporations, and accusations of perjury, serious dishonesty, and grave misconduct. The Ombudsman issued an Order on December 7, 2009, prompting Capulong to file a counter-affidavit, which he did on February 24, 2010, denying all allegations and asserting compliance with SALN filing requirements.
Subsequent Proceedings and Ombudsman's Orders
Capulong's legal arguments included claims that he had filed his SALNs as required, that any non-filed statements were due to a lack of directive from the head office, and that his wife's corporate interests had been declared unnecessary due to the corporations' revocation by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Despite Capulong’s motions for hearings and early resolution, the Ombudsman placed him under a preventive suspension on March 30, 2011, which prompted Capulong to seek judicial relief through a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
Court of Appeals Involvement
The Court of Appeals (CA) issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on April 26, 2011, halting the implementation of the Ombudsman’s suspension, which was later lifted on May 13, 2011. However, the CA maintained that the merits of the case warranted examination and ruled that the lifting of the suspension did not render the case moot. The CA ultimately dismissed the Ombudsman’s charges against Capulong on July 29, 2011, finding a lack of sufficient basis for the preventive suspension and that the allegations did not constitute serious misconduct.
Ombudsman's Reconsideration and Supreme Court Appeal
The Ombudsman filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the current petition for review on certiorari. The primary legal question presented to the Supreme Court was whether the CA had jurisdiction to grant relief after the lifting of the suspension order.
Supreme Court Ruling and Legal Reasoning
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, underscoring that the lifting of the preventive suspension did not render the case moot. It highlighted the necessity for judicial review to ensure that there were no grave abuses of discretion by the Ombudsman that might constitute a lack or excess of jurisdiction.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 201643)
Case Background
- This case originates from a petition for review on certiorari filed by the Office of the Ombudsman against Jose T. Capulong.
- The petition contests the Decision dated July 29, 2011, of the Court of Appeals (CA), and the subsequent Resolution dated April 12, 2012, which denied the Ombudsman’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- The case was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 119071.
Facts of the Case
- The Ombudsman received a Complaint-Affidavit on July 27, 2009, alleging violations by Capulong, a Customs Operation Officer V of the Bureau of Customs (BOC).
- Charges included:
- Violation of Section 8 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, which pertains to the failure to file required Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).
- Perjury under Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code.
- Serious dishonesty and grave misconduct under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
- The allegations focused on two main acts:
- Capulong's failure to file SALNs for the years 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993, and 1998.
- His subsequent SALNs for the years 1999 to 2004 allegedly failed to disclose his wife's business interests in two corporations.
Proceedings Before the Ombudsman
- On December 7, 2009, the Ombudsman issued an Order directing Capulong to submit a counter-affidavit.
- Capulong denied all allegations in his Counter-Affidavit filed on February 24, 2010, claiming:
- He consistently filed his SALNs.
- He had not received any order to submit SALNs for the contested years.
- He was unaware of his wife’s incorporator status in the corporations mentioned, asserting no intentional falsehood.
- Further, Capulong submitted a Rejoinder on March 17, 2010, outlinin