Case Summary (G.R. No. 146486)
Factual Allegations and Initial Complaint
On 29 December 1999, twenty-two personnel of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas filed a formal complaint alleging that Deputy Ombudsman Arturo Mojica committed sexual harassment (against Rayvi Padua-Varona), extorted money from confidential employees (James Alueta and Eden Kiamco), and oppressed staff by withholding P7,200.00 benefits. The complainants sought investigation and requested appointment of an officer-in-charge from OMB-Manila, threatened a mass leave, and publicized their allegations to the media.
Ombudsman’s Immediate Response and Protective Measures
The Ombudsman traveled to Cebu to address the reported office rebellion. Because of safety concerns for the complainant and alleged witness intimidation, the Ombudsman allowed the complainant to travel to Manila and installed Assistant Ombudsman Nicanor J. Cruz as Officer-in-Charge of OMB-Visayas. The Ombudsman directed the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) to verify and investigate the allegations.
FFIB Report and Referral to Committee of Peers
The FFIB reported that evidence was strong on charges of extortion, sexual harassment, and oppression. The Ombudsman referred the matter to a Committee of Peers (COP). The COP initially recommended converting the investigation into one solely for impeachment, but the Ombudsman disapproved that recommendation on the ground that Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor are not removable by impeachment under the Office’s established position and relevant jurisprudence.
COP Evaluation, Docketing, and Charges Recommended
After evaluation, the COP found sufficient cause to warrant preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication. It recommended separate criminal and administrative docketing for the matters and directed that formal investigations be conducted simultaneously pursuant to Administrative Order No. 7. The COP specifically directed Mojica to submit controverting evidence in criminal case OMB-0-00-0615 (sexual harassment and graft provisions) and required an answer in administrative case OMB-ADM-0-00-0316 (dishonesty, grave misconduct, oppression, prejudicial conduct, and conflict of interest under the Administrative Code).
Procedural Moves by Complainants and COP’s Preventive Suspension Inquiry
On 10 April 2000, complainants filed a Motion to Place Respondent Under Preventive Suspension, asserting strong evidence and alleging ongoing harassment of witnesses. The Ombudsman instructed the COP to consider preventive suspension in the administrative proceedings. The COP later found prima facie evidence and required Mojica’s responsive pleadings and counter-affidavits.
Petition to the Court of Appeals and Temporary Restraining Order
Mojica filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to enjoin his suspension, to restrain prosecution-related acts, to set aside docketing and investigative acts, and to challenge alleged detailing/assignment to OMB-Manila. On 4 May 2000 the Court of Appeals issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining respondents from proceeding with the hearing on the motion for preventive suspension and from conducting further proceedings relative to suspension until further order.
COP’s Later Actions, Alleged Waiver, and New Filings
Despite the TRO, the COP later issued an order deeming Mojica to have waived his right to present evidence after failing to file required counter-affidavits within the extended period; it deemed the cases submitted for resolution. Mojica filed urgent motions with the Court of Appeals to enjoin further action and to cite the Ombudsman for contempt for allegedly violating the TRO. The Court of Appeals required the Ombudsman to show cause and initially directed compliance with the TRO.
Subsequent Filings by Military Deputy Ombudsman and Further Motions
A separate office (Deputy Ombudsman for the Military) later directed Mojica to answer different charges (OMB-0-00-1050 and OMB-ADM-0-00-0506). Mojica viewed these as attempts to circumvent the appellate court’s injunction and filed further motions seeking to enjoin those actions and to cite respondents for contempt. The Ombudsman contended the injunction applied only to the previously docketed matters and also argued that Mojica’s term of office had expired on 6 July 2000, affecting his claimed immunity.
Court of Appeals Decision of 18 December 2000 and Its Reasoning
On 18 December 2000 the Court of Appeals (despite Mojica’s term having expired) set aside the COP’s order of 30 March 2000, declared the criminal and administrative complaints against Mojica null and void, dismissed those complaints, and invalidated all acts or orders subjecting him to criminal and administrative investigations. The appellate court acknowledged that constitutional texts and commentaries indicated a Deputy Ombudsman is not an impeachable officer but felt constrained by the Supreme Court’s prior pronouncements (characterized as precedential) to treat Deputy Ombudsmen as impeachable.
Petition to the Supreme Court and Proper Mode of Review
The Office of the Ombudsman filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 (and alternatively an original certiorari under Rule 65). The Supreme Court clarified that appeals from final dispositions of the Court of Appeals must proceed under Rule 45, not Rule 65, and found the petition timely filed within the 15-day reglementary period.
Central Legal Issue: Impeachability of the Deputy Ombudsman
The core legal question was whether a Deputy Ombudsman is an impeachable officer under Article XI, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Section 2 was quoted and analyzed; it enumerates “The President, the Vice-President, the members of the Supreme Court, the members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman” as removable by impeachment and specifies that all other public officers may be removed as provided by law but not by impeachment. The appellate court had relied on prior Supreme Court authorities (Cuenco v. Fernan, In Re: Raul M. Gonzales, Jarque v. Desierto, and a minute resolution in Lastimosa-Dalawampu) which, in earlier contexts, stated that an officer whose bar membership is a constitutional qualification and who is removable only by impeachment cannot be charged with disbarment during incumbency. Those earlier pronouncements were characterized by the Supreme Court as obiter dictum when applied to the impeachability question.
Constitutional Convention Records and Scholarly Commentary Considered
The Supreme Court reviewed Records of the 1986 Constitutional Commission showing discussions that expressly referred to the Ombudsman (singular) as impeachable and excluded deputies from impeachment coverage. It also cited commentaries of leading constitutional scholars (Justice Isagani Cruz, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, Representative Antonio Nachura) who concur that the enumeration of impeachable officers in Article XI, Section 2 is exclusive and does not include Deputy Ombudsmen.
Doctrine of Stare Decisis, Distinguishing Dicta, and Application
The Court explicated the difference between binding precedent and obiter dictum, emphasizing that dicta are not binding under stare decisis. It determined that the earlier Supreme Court statements suggesting the Ombudsman and deputies were in the same category for impeachment-related procedural consequences were dicta and not controlling when the specific issue of impeachability had not been directly raised and decided. Therefore, the Court rejected the Court of Appeals’ reliance on stare decisis to perpetuate what the Supreme Court characterized as an erroneous obiter dictum.
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 146486)
Citation and Panel
- Reported at 493 Phil. 63, Second Division; G.R. No. 146486; Decision dated March 04, 2005.
- Opinion authored by Justice Mina V. CHICO-NAZARIO.
- Concurring: Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.
- Court of Appeals Decision under review was penned by Associate Justice B.A. Adefuin-de la Cruz, with Associate Justices Salome A. Montaya and Renato C. Dacudao concurring.
Nature of the Proceeding and Reliefs Sought
- Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Alternatively, an original special civil action for certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Relief sought by petitioner (Office of the Ombudsman): reversal of the Court of Appeals decision of 18 December 2000 in CA-G.R. SP No. 58460 (Arturo C. Mojica v. Ombudsman Aniano Desierto, Over-all Deputy Ombudsman Margarito Gervacio, Jr. and the Committee of Peers), and reinstatement of the criminal and administrative complaints docketed by the Committee of Peers.
Factual Background (origins of the complaint)
- On 29 December 1999, twenty-two officials and employees of the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman.
- The complainants, led by two directors of the OMB-Visayas, alleged that then Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Arturo C. Mojica committed:
- Sexual harassment against Rayvi Padua-Varona;
- Extortion (mulcting money) from confidential employees James Alueta and Eden Kiamco;
- Oppression by withholding P7,200.00 benefits of OMB-Visayas employees on the date the funds were due for release.
- Complainants requested appointment of an officer-in-charge from OMB-Manila to manage their office to prevent harassment and influence by the Deputy Ombudsman.
- The complainants threatened a mass leave of absence and took their cause to the media; the Ombudsman responded immediately by going to Cebu City.
Immediate Administrative Actions and Safeguarding of Witnesses
- Upon arrival in Cebu, the Ombudsman was informed that the private respondent wished to proceed to Manila for safety concerns and fear of reprisal; the Ombudsman assented and installed Assistant Ombudsman Nicanor J. Cruz as Officer-in-Charge of OMB-Visayas.
- The Ombudsman directed the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB) to conduct verification and fact-finding investigation.
- FFIB later reported that the evidence against Mojica was strong as to extortion, sexual harassment and oppression.
Committee of Peers (COP) Investigation and Evaluation
- The Ombudsman referred the FFIB report to a constituted Committee of Peers composed of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, the Special Prosecutor, and the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military.
- The Committee of Peers initially recommended converting the investigation solely for purposes of impeachment; the Ombudsman denied that recommendation, reiterating the Office’s established position that Deputy Ombudsmen and the Special Prosecutor are not removable by impeachment.
- The Ombudsman’s March 27, 2000 Memorandum confirmed disapproval of converting the investigation into impeachment proceedings and directed COP to evaluate merits and, if warranted by evidence, to conduct administrative and criminal investigations immediately.
- The Committee’s Evaluation dated 30 March 2000 found sufficient cause to warrant preliminary investigation and administrative adjudication, and recommended separate docketing of criminal and administrative cases. The Committee listed:
- Criminal charges: Violation of Section 3, paragraphs (b) and (e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act); Violation of R.A. No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995).
- Administrative charges: Dishonesty; Grave Misconduct; Oppression; Conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service; Directly or indirectly having financial and material interest in any transaction requiring approval of his Office (citing Section 22, paragraphs (A), (C), (N), (T) and (U), Rule XIV, Executive Order No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987).
- The Committee directed separate docketing: criminal case and administrative case, with formal investigation to be simultaneously and jointly conducted by the COP pursuant to Administrative Order No. 7.
Formal Proceedings Before the Committee of Peers and Early Motions
- On 6 April 2000, the COP directed private respondent Mojica in OMB-0-00-0615 (Padua-Varona v. Mojica) for violation of RA 7877 and Section 3, par. (b) and (c) of RA 3019 to submit his controverting evidence.
- On 10 April 2000, the complainants in OMB-0-00-0615 filed a Motion to Place Respondent Under Preventive Suspension, alleging strong evidence and claiming Mojica was harassing witnesses and complainants to desist.
- On the same date, the Ombudsman issued a Memorandum directing the COP to conduct administrative proceedings in OMB-ADM-0-00-0316 (OMB Visayas Employees v. Mojica) for the administrative offenses alleged, and to submit a recommendation on the propriety of preventive suspension.
- The COP issued an Order dated 25 April 2000 in OMB-ADM-0-00-0316 finding prima facie evidence against Mojica and requiring him to submit an answer, counter-affidavit and supporting evidence within ten days.
- Mojica filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals challenging actions of the Ombudsman, Overall Deputy Ombudsman, the COP and the Special Prosecutor, and praying, among others, for TRO, preliminary injunction, and declarations nullifying acts of the Ombudsman including alleged de facto demotion/assignment to OMB-Manila.
Court of Appeals' Interim Reliefs and Proceedings
- On 4 May 2000, the Court of Appeals granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining respondents from suspending Mojica and from proceeding with the hearing on the Motion to Place Respondent Under Preventive Suspension set for 9 May 2000, to maintain status quo and prevent mootness.
- Despite the TRO, on 6 June 2000 the COP issued an Order in both OMB-0-00-0615 and OMB-ADM-0-00-0316 deeming Mojica to have waived his right to present evidence for failure to submit required counter-affidavits; the COP thus deemed both criminal and administrative cases submitted for resolution on the record.
- Mojica filed urgent motions in the Court of Appeals to enjoin further action and to cite the Ombudsman for contempt for nonconformity with the TRO.
- On 20 June 2000, the Court of Appeals directed the Ombudsman to comment on these pleadings and to comply with its TRO.
- On 5 July 2000, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution directing issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining respondents from taking any action in OMB-0-00-0615 (criminal) and OMB-ADM-0-00-0316 (administrative) against Mojica, and deemed the petition submitted for resolution on the merits upon submission of the Ombudsman’s explanation.
Additional Proceedings and New Filings; Court of Appeals’ Concerns About Circumvention
- On 19 June 2000 the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military directed Mojica to answer different charges in OMB-0-00-1050 (alleged violation of Art. 266 and Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019) and OMB-ADM-0-00-0506 (grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service).
- Mojica viewed these later actions as an attempt to circumvent the Court of Appeals’ directives and again sought relief for respondents to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt.
- The Ombudsman contended that the writ of preliminary injunction was limited to cases OMB-0-00-0615 and OMB-ADM-0-00-0316 and did not enjoin new cases filed afterwards; the Ombudsman also argued that Mojica’s term had expired as of 6 July 2000 so he could not invoke immunity from suit.
- On 14 August 2000 the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military issued an order deeming OMB-0-00-1050 and OMB-ADM-0-00-0506 submitted for resolution on the basis of evidence.
- Mojica filed another urgent motion on 17 August 2000 to enj