Case Summary (G.R. No. 198201)
Procedural History: Ombudsman and Court of Appeals Proceedings
Representative Nograles lodged complaints with the Ombudsman for grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct. On April 21, 2010, the Ombudsman found the respondents guilty of simple neglect (later corrected to simple misconduct) for failing to observe demolition procedures and imposed a six-month suspension, immediately executory under Ombudsman rules. Respondents secured a preliminary injunction from the Court of Appeals on August 4, 2010, which the appellate court later converted into a permanent injunction on January 28, 2011, ruling that they were exonerated because the city engineer acted as building official under Section 477 of the Local Government Code and that DPWH involvement satisfied procedural requirements. Motions for reconsideration were denied on August 9, 2011. The Ombudsman and Nograles filed separate petitions for certiorari before the Supreme Court, later consolidated.
Issues Presented
- Whether presidential immunity insulated one respondent (Mayor Duterte) from administrative discipline.
- Whether the summary demolition constituted simple misconduct when the structure was allegedly a nuisance per se.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in issuing a preliminary injunction halting the executory suspension order.
Legal Standards on Misconduct and Nuisance
Misconduct by a public officer involves transgressing a definite rule of action through unlawful behavior or gross negligence. Simple misconduct lacks elements of corruption or willful law violation. A nuisance per se is an act or structure that immediately endangers health, safety, or obstructs public water passage and may be abated summarily; nuisances per accidens require notice and hearing. Under PD 1096 IRR Section 216, demolition of dangerous or nuisance structures requires (a) a finding by the building official, (b) at least fifteen days’ written notice to the owner, (c) opportunity to appeal to the DPWH Secretary, and (d) issuance of a demolition order and permit.
Analysis: Nuisance Classification and Demolition Procedure
The Supreme Court agreed with the Ombudsman and Court of Appeals that the canal cover did not qualify as a nuisance per se because the flooding did not pose an immediate threat to safety or health as an unprotected canal would. Consequently, demolition had to comply with Section 216 procedures. However, strict observance of the fifteen-day notice and separate demolition permit was impracticable here: the “owner” of the structure was the State (DPWH), which had been informed of and tacitly approved remediation and demolition plans well before October 2008 and actively participated in the demolition. Because the DPWH did not object or appeal and even dispatched representatives to assist, the rationale of notice and appeal was fulfilled. Similarly, a separate permit was unnecessary where the building official himself carried out the demolition. The overlapping roles of owner, building official, and demolition authority made strict procedural compliance impossible and did not constitute gross negligence or deliberate disregard of law.
Constitutional and Statutory Basis for Executory Suspension
Under the 1987 Constitution, the Ombudsman is an independent body charged with preserving the integrity of public service. Ombudsman Administrative Order No. 7, as amended by AO 17, mandates that disciplinary decisions imposing suspension are immediately executory and not stayed by pending appeal or injunctive writ. Preventive suspension serves to protect public interest and does not violate any vested right to office; exonerated officials may claim back salaries and emoluments.
Immunity of the President from Administrative Discipline
While the President enjoys immunity from suit during tenure to prevent harassment and ensure effective governance, such immunity merely suspends but does not extinguish administrative liability. The Ombudsman, as an inde
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 198201)
Background and Procedural History
- Two consolidated petitions for certiorari (G.R. Nos. 198201 and 198334) assail the Court of Appeals’ January 28, 2011 Decision and August 9, 2011 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 113919.
- Ombudsman found six Davao City officials guilty of simple misconduct for summary demolition of a canal cover and suspended them for six months (April 21, 2010 Decision; May 6, 2010 correction).
- Respondents secured a preliminary injunction (August 4, 2010) from the Court of Appeals and were later exonerated on the merits.
- Both Ombudsman and Representative Nograles filed separate motions for reconsideration, denied August 9, 2011.
- Supreme Court consolidated the petitions on November 28, 2011; oral arguments and subsequent motions ensued, including Solicitor General’s unconsulted Motion to Withdraw (2016–2018).
Factual Complexion
- Representative Nograles funded a Canal-Cover Project on Quezon Boulevard, Davao City, completed February 16, 2006, aimed at public safety, park beautification, and odor control.
- Concrete slab prevented routine dredging of silt and garbage; flooding recurred in early 2008.
- Davao City Engineer’s Office notified DPWH of removal plan on April 17, 2008; DPWH added manholes but flooding persisted.
- City Legal Officers RaAo and Quitain (Sept. 17, 2008) opined the cover was a nuisance per se and subject to summary abatement without permit.
- City Engineer Gestuveo informed DPWH District Engineer of planned demolition on October 16, 2008; demolition executed October 20, 2008 with DPWH assistance.
- Justice Secretary Gonzales’ Opinion No. 10 (Nov. 12, 2008) clarified building permits requirement and DPWH’s exclusive authority to determine nuisances under IRR of the National Building Code.
Complaints Before the Ombudsman
- Grave abuse of authority complaint against Gestuveo, Avisado, Jimlani.
- Grave misconduct complaint against Duterte, Avisado, Gestuveo, RaAo, Quitain, Jimlani.
- Allegation: summary demolition without compliance with Section 216 IRR (15-day notice; demolition permit) caused ₱2,000,000 damage to national funds.
Defense by Respondents
- Canal-Cover Project built by DPWH on main drainage artery; flooding rendered it nuisance per se.
- City Engineer is also local Building Official under LGC § 477—no separate permit required.
- DPWH, as project owner, was informed and did not object; DPWH representatives joined demolition.
- Project dubbed “Nograles Park” without Sangguniang Panlungsod approval—irregular naming.