G.R. No. 177135 - Radaza vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177135)

Factual Background

The preparations for the ASEAN Summit were undertaken in 2006 or less than a year before the summit date. Cause-oriented groups wrote a letter dated 9 January 2007 to the Office of the Ombudsman’s Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO), urging investigation into allegedly anomalous transactions involving the procurement and installation of decorative streetlights in Cebu City, Mandaue City, and Lapu-Lapu City. The letter specifically pointed to allegedly overpriced procurement of decorative lamp posts and streetlights installed along the ceremonial routes.

The matter proceeded with further submissions, including supplemental evidence from Crisologo Saavedra, identified as Project Manager of the joint venture Pelican/Cebesos, which had offered to sell and install the decorative streetlights in Cebu City. After investigation, a Final Evaluation Report was submitted to PACPO Director Palanca-Santiago on 23 March 2007. The report stated that the procurement and installation project for decorative lamp posts and lighting facilities pertained to the national government through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). Under the project’s implementation scheme, the local chief executives selected the designs for their respective areas, subject to DPWH approval. The cities’ offices prepared their own Program of Works and Estimates (POWE), each reflecting equipment, personnel, and total expenditure requirements.

The PACPO investigating team concluded, based on detailed comparisons, that the costs for lamp posts and street lighting facilities described in the cities’ POWE documents were up to ten (10) times higher than the costs reflected in importation documents and supplier price quotations. The report attributed the alleged overpricing to collusion involving private contractors—Gampik Construction and Development Corp. (Gampik) and Fabmik Construction and Equipment Co., Inc. (Fabmik)—and various public officials, including city officials and DPWH Regional Office VII officials. Accordingly, the report recommended the filing of criminal charges for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Sec. 3(e) and the filing of administrative charges for Dishonesty/Misconduct against the public officials implicated.

On this basis, an administrative complaint for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) and docketed as Administrative Case No. OMB-V-A-07-0122-C.

Ombudsman’s Order of Preventive Suspension

On 29 March 2007, Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez issued an order in Administrative Case No. OMB-V-A-07-0122-C. The order framed the administrative allegations as involving close participation and conspiracy, including the claim that the respondents were orchestrating the overpricing through conspiracy with private contractors. It relied on the Final Evaluation Report and its attachments as strong evidence establishing, at least prima facie, the respondents’ liability. It further characterized the alleged acts as flagrant and involving grave misconduct, with a possible advancement to destruction or tampering of important official documents.

Thus, the Ombudsman placed the petitioners under preventive suspension for six (6) months, pending investigation.

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Denial of TRO

Without seeking reconsideration of the Ombudsman’s 29 March 2007 order, the petitioners filed with the Court of Appeals on 2 April 2007 a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 with a prayer for a Preliminary Injunction and issuance of a TRO, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 02615. The petitioners argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the preventive suspension order because there was allegedly no strong evidence of guilt to warrant it. They asserted, in substance, that the procurement and installation of the decorative lamp posts and street lighting facilities in Lapu-Lapu were entirely a national project and that their participation was limited to signing the POWE prepared by DPWH-Region VII due to time constraints.

They further sought TRO and/or preliminary injunctive relief on the grounds that enforcement of the preventive suspension violated their rights and would inflict grave and irreparable injury. On 2 April 2007, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution denying the TRO.

After the petitioners filed a very urgent motion for reconsideration and the Court of Appeals directed the Ombudsman to comment, the preventive suspension was already implemented in the field. The record reflected that the DILG implemented the preventive suspension order through memoranda issued by the DILG Secretary Ronaldo V. Puno, with service reflected as follows: petitioner Radaza was suspended on 3 April 2007, and petitioners Cuizon, Tagaan, Jr., and Veloso were served on 4 April 2007.

Events After Filing: Withdrawal as to Radaza and Completion of Suspension Period

On 10 April 2007, the petitioners filed a motion to withdraw their motion for reconsideration with the Court of Appeals, explaining that, due to service of the notice of preventive suspension, the act sought to be restrained had already been performed. The next day, 11 April 2007, they filed with the Supreme Court the instant Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for an immediate TRO and/or writ of preliminary mandatory injunction.

They raised several issues, all centered on the alleged absence of strong evidence of guilt; alleged lack of necessity for suspension; alleged deprivation of procedural due process due to the issuance of preventive suspension; alleged violation of Sec. 261(x) of the Omnibus Election Code regarding suspension of elective officials during the election period; and, lastly, the alleged wrong application of doctrines relating to a local chief executive’s responsibility for actions of subordinates, citing Arias vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 81563, 19 December 1989.

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Court, circumstances changed. The Court granted a withdrawal of the petition insofar as petitioner Radaza was concerned by Resolution dated 13 June 2007, based on Radaza’s successful re-election as Mayor of Lapu-Lapu City. In the meantime, the suspension periods for the remaining petitioners had also run its course.

On 31 January 2008, the Office of the Ombudsman rendered a decision in Administrative Case No. OMB-V-A-07-0122-C, ordering the dismissal from service of petitioners Cuizon, Taga-an, Jr., and Veloso, and finding them guilty of grave misconduct.

Supreme Court Proceedings and the Mootness Resolution

While the petition was pending, the Court had required respondents to comment, ordered the filing of replies, and continued to process the case. The petitioners later filed a Manifestation with Motion before the Court on 18 February 2008, urging that a reply was unnecessary because the petition had allegedly become moot and academic. They cited the earlier allowance of Radaza’s withdrawal and the alleged completion of the six-month suspension periods for the other petitioners.

The Court, in resolving the petition, emphasized that a preventive suspension order issued on 29 March 2007 had been implemented by service of DILG Secretary memoranda on 3 and 4 April 2007, and that petitioners had not successfully obtained a TRO or injunction that would have interrupted the execution of the suspension. Consequently, under the computation used by the Court, the six-month preventive suspension commencing on 4 April 2007 ended on 1 October 2007.

The Court also noted that the petitioners themselves later acknowledged the lapse of the suspension period and resumed their posts. As for Radaza, the Court had earlier allowed withdrawal. In addition, by the time the Supreme Court resolved the petition, the Ombudsman had already terminated the administrative case and imposed the penalty of dismissal on the remaining petitioners through its 31 January 2008 decision. This development rendered the preventive suspension order effectively inconsequential.

The Court applied the doctrine that a petition becomes moot and academic when events transpire such that the resolution would no longer have practical value. It considered whether any recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine were applicable, including grave constitutional violation, exceptional character of the situation and paramount public interest, the need to formulate controlling principles, and the likelihood of repetition yet eva

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 177135)

Arturo O. Radaza, Julito H. Cuizon, Fernando T. Taga-an, Jr., and Rogelio D. Veloso filed a Petition for Certiorari with a prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction to stop the enforcement of an Ombudsman preventive suspension order.
The petition assailed the Resolution of the Court of Appeals, Special Nineteenth (19th) Division in CA-G.R. SP No. 02615, which denied the petitioners’ request for a TRO to enjoin the Office of the Ombudsman from implementing its order.
The controversy centered on the propriety of preventive suspension pending investigation for alleged overpricing and related administrative misconduct.
During the pendency of the petition, supervening events occurred that rendered the preventive suspension order fully served and, in the case of some petitioners, replaced by an administrative dismissal decision.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The petitioners were local government officials identified in the Ombudsman proceedings: Mayor Arturo O. Radaza of Lapu-Lapu City, and City Engineers Julito H. Cuizon, Fernando T. Taga-an, Jr., and Rogelio D. Veloso.
The respondents included the Honorable Court of Appeals, Special Nineteenth (19th) Division, Ombudsman Merceditas Gutiérrez, Deputy Ombudsman Virginia Palanca-Santiago, the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), and named officials Norma R. Patalingjug and Crisologo Saavedra.
The challenged act was the Order of the Ombudsman dated 29 March 2007 placing petitioners under preventive suspension for six (6) months pending investigation.
Petitioners first sought a TRO before the Court of Appeals through a Rule 65 petition in CA-G.R. SP No. 02615, but the Court of Appeals denied the TRO prayer on 2 April 2007.
After the Court of Appeals directed comment on petitioners’ subsequent motion for reconsideration, petitioners withdrew their petition as to Mayor Radaza because of supervening reelection, and the Court later dismissed the entire petition for mootness.
The Ombudsman also issued an administrative Decision on 31 January 2008 dismissing Cuizon, Taga-an, Jr., and Veloso from service, further affecting the practical relevance of the preventive suspension controversy.

Key Factual Allegations

The alleged irregularity stemmed from preparations for the twelfth ASEAN Summit held in Cebu from 9 to 15 January 2007.
The preparations were carried out in 2006 or less than a year before the summit date, and the case concerned procurement and installation of decorative lamp posts and street lighting facilities along ceremonial routes in Cebu, Mandaue, and Lapu-Lapu.
Cause-oriented groups wrote a letter on 9 January 2007 to the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO) urging investigation of overpriced procurement of lamp posts and streetlights.
Crisologo Saavedra, project manager of the Pelican/Cebesos joint venture that had offered to sell and install the decorative lighting, submitted supplemental evidence to PACPO to support claims of overpricing.
PACPO issued a Final Evaluation Report on 23 March 2007, which treated the project as pertaining to the national government through DPWH and described a design-selection scheme involving local chief executives subject to DPWH approval.
The report explained that each city prepared a Program of Works and Estimates (POWE) with supporting components and that DPWH’s bidding process and regional offices were involved for other parts of the overall project.
PACPO concluded that the lamp post and street lighting costs in the city POWEs were as much as ten (10) times higher than costs reflected in importation documents and price quotations from suppliers.
The investigating team found prima facie evidence of overpricing arising from alleged collusion among private contractors and involved public officials, including the petitioners and other officials from the concerned local governments and DPWH Region VII.

Ombudsman Proceedings and Preventive Suspension

PACPO recommended the filing of criminal charges for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Sec. 3(e) and an administrative case for Dishonesty/Misconduct against the erring public officials.
An administrative complaint for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) as Administrative Case No. OMB-V-A-07-0122-C.
On 29 March 2007, Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez issued an order placing petitioners under preventive suspension for six (6) months pending investigation.
The Ombudsman based preventive suspension on the view that the PACPO Final Evaluation Report and attachments, described as “mostly public documents,” constituted strong evidence of guilt.
The Ombudsman characterized the alleged acts as flagrant, with potential implications including destruction or tampering of important official documents.
Petitioners filed a Rule 65 petition with the Court of Appeals on 2 April 2007 seeking certiorari and preliminary relief in the form of a TRO or injunction to stop implementation of the preventive suspension order.
DILG implemented the Ombudsman order: petitioners Radaza received implementation on 3 April 2007, while Cuizon, Taga-an, Jr., and Veloso were served on 4 April 2007 through memoranda directed by DILG Secretary Ronaldo V. Puno and served via city officials.

Petitioners’ Arguments

Petitioners argued that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it issued the preventive suspension order.
They insisted that there was no strong evidence of guilt to warrant preventive suspension.
Petitioners contended that the procurement and installation of decorativ