CONCHITA

CARPIO
MORALES,
IN
HER
CAPACITY
AS
THE
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) AND JEJOMAR
ERWIN S. BINAY, JR., Respondents.
G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015

Facts:
Ombudsman Morales filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against Jejomar Binay Jr amd
other public officers and employees of the City Government of Makati for six months.
Atty. Renato Bondal and Nicolas Enciso VI filed a complaint against Jejomar Binay Jr. and other
public officers of Makati. Binay, Jr., et al were accused of plunder and violation of RA 3019 or
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act because of the five phases of the procurement and
construction of the Makati City Hall Parking Building.
Ombudsman constituted a Special Panel of Investigators (1st Special Panel) and charged Binay,
Jr., et al with 6 administrative cases for Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty and Conduct
Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and 6 criminal cases for violation of section 3 of
RA 3019, Malversation of Public Funds and Falsification of Public Documents.
In Binay, Jrs first term (2010-2013), Hilmarcs Construction Corporation was awarded the
Makati Parking Building project for Phase III. Release of funds are as follows: (1) P130,
518,394.80 on December 15, 2010; (2) P134,470,659.64 on January 19, 2011; (3) P92,775,202.
on February 25, 2011; (4) P57,148,625.51 on March 28, 2011; (5) P40,908,750.61 on May 3,
2011;29 and (6) P106,672,761.90 on July 7, 2011.
Phase IV was awarded to Hilmarcs and release of funds are as follows: (1) P182,325,538.97 on
October 4, 2O11; (2) P173,132,606.91 on October 28,2011; (3) P80,408,735.20 on December 12,
2011; (4) P62,878,291.81 on February 10, 2012; and (5) P59,639,167.90 on October 1, 2012.
Phase V was awarded to Hilmarcs and release of funds are as follows: P32,398,220.05 and
P30,582,629.30 on December 20, 2012.
In Binay, Jrs second term (2013-2016), a continuation of release of funds for Phase V with
Hilmarcs was in the amount of P27,443,629.97. MANA Architecture & Interior Design Co. also
received funds for the design and architectural services amounting to P429,011.48.
Ombudsman created another Special Panel of Investigators (2 nd Special Panel) with
recommendations of a subject preventive suspension order placing Binay, Jr., et al under
preventive suspension for not more than six months.
Binay, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari seeking nullification of preventive suspension order.
Binay, Jr. argued that he is not liable for anomalous activity in the five phases of the Makati
Parking Building project because: 1) Phases 1 and 2 were undertaken before he was elected
Mayor of Makati in 2010; and 2) Phases 3, 4 and 5 transpired during his first term and his re-

election as Mayor for 2nd term condoned his administrative liability. Binay, Jr. claimed that
evidence of guilt against him is not strong and that he had no participation in irregularities.
Court of Appeals issued a Resolution granting Binay, Jrs prayer for a TRO considering that the
acts subject to the administrative cases were all committed during his prior term, applying the
condonation doctrine. Binay, Jr.s re-election meant that he cannot be administratively charged.
Binay, Jr., filed petition for contempt of refusal to obey the CA by impeding, obstructing or
degrading the administration of justice. The Ombudsman was added as a respondent. Binay, Jr.
accused the Ombudsman and other respondents of willfully and maliciously ignoring the TRO
issued by the CA against preventive suspension order.
Issues:
Whether or not the Ombudsmans petition to manifest case without filing a motion for
reconsideration is a valid measure.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals has the right or power to issue a temporary restraining order
and writ of Preliminary Injuction.
Decision:
The Ombudsman has the authority to petition without filing a motion for reconsideration when
there is a need for an urgent resolution to avoid prejudice as stated in the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedures, Rule 65, Section 1 and 2.
Requisites for preventive suspension of a public officer are present : (A) evidence of Binays
guilt was strong given that: (1) losing bidders and members of Bids and Awards Committee of
Makati had attested to irregularities on the project; (2) documents on record negated the
publication of bids; and (3) disbursement vouchers, checks and receipts showed release of funds;
and (B) (1) Binay, Jr., et al. were charged with Grave Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty and
Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service; (2) charges if proven warrant removal
from public service under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and
(3) Binay, Jr., et al.s positions give them access to public records and allow them to influence
witnesses which can prejudice the investigation.
The motion to issue a TRO & WPI of the CA is valid as the RA 6770, Section 14 stating that
courts have no power to issue the mentioned injunction when the case involves the investigation
involving the Ombudsman was declared unconstitutional by the SC.

I WANTED TO REMOVE THE DATES AND AMOUNTS ON TOP BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO MANY BUT
I THINK THAT THOSE DETAILS COULD HELP UNDERSTAND FASTER AND BETTER WHAT THIS
CASE IS ALL ABOUT. SORRY IT WAS LATE, THE CASE WAS ONE OF THE LONGER ONES.