Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition: Supreme Court
Petition For Certiorari and Prohibition: Supreme Court
.:
i
PREFATORY
.,. Ill'
' ' ..
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court ofAppeals, et al.
Page 2of31
..
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Direct the officer concerned, in any appropriate. case, and subject to
such limitations as may be provided by law, to furnish it with copies
of documents relating to contracts or transactions entered into by his
office involving the disbursement or use of public funds or
properties, and report any irregularity to the Commission on Audit
for appropriate action.
(5) Promulgate its rules of procedure and exercise such other powers or
perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law. 2
2
Article XI, Section 13, Paragraphs 1,3,4,5 & 8, Constitution.'
3
Pursuant to Section l, Rule 65, Rules of Court.
4
Pursuant to Section 2, Rule 65, Rules of Court.
!!lo
"'
fl
PETITION
Office ofthe Ombudsman vs. Court ofAppeals, et al.
Page 3of31
reads:
...
In view of the seriousness of the issues raised in the
Petition for Certiorari and the possible repercussions on the
electorate who will unquestionably be affected by
suspension of their elective official, the Court resolves to
grant petitioner's prayer for a Temporary Restraining
Order for a period of sixty (60) days from notice hereof,
conditioned upon the posting by petitioner of a bond in
the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
(PS00,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 5
5
Emphasis in the original; citations omitted. .
6
A copy of the Suspension Order is attached hereto as Annex "C": 1
!Iii' II
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et .a/.
Page 4of31
---------------------------------------------------------------------
7
Section 5, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
8
lagua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 173390. 27 June 2012.
11!1 Ill
..
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court ofAppeals. et al.
Page5of31
7. While as a rule, certiorari will not lie unless the lower court
has, through a motion for reconsideration, been given a cha~ce to correct its
errors, this rule admits of certain exceptions, such as in this case where (a)
10
the Questioned Resolutions are contrary to the Constitution, and the law,
(b) there is extreme urgency for relief and any further delay would
irreparably prejudice. petitioner and the public as well, 11 ( c) the issues
involved are, as in this case, pure questions of law, 12 (d) the error is patent
or the disputed order is void, 1 or (e) where public interest is involved. 14 All
these exceptions are present in this case.
THE PARTIES
9
Vergara vs. Rugue, G.R. No. L-32984, 26 August 1977. ii
10
Pefianco vs. Moral, G. R. No. 132248, 19 January 2000; Quiamh'ao vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 91935, 04
March 1996; and Alfante vs. NLRC, G.R. No. I 22655, I 5 December I 997.
11
Siok Ping Tang vs. Subic Bay Distribution, G.R. No. 162575, :PS December 2010; Domdom vs.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 182382-83. 24 February 2010; Diamond Bifilders Conglomeration vs. Country
Bankers Insurance Corporation, G.R. No. 171820, 13 December 2007; Star Paper Corporation vs.
Espiritu, G.R. No. 154006, 02 November 2006; Aguilar vs. Manila Banking Corporation, G.R. No.
15791 I, 19 September 2006; Romy's Freight Service vs. Castro, G.R. No. 141637: 08 June 2006.
12
Spuses Sombilon vs. Garay, G.R. No. 179914, 16 June 2014. ;
13
14
National Housing Authority vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144275, 05 July 200 I.
HPS Software and Communication Corporation vs. Philippine long :Distance Telephone Company, G. R.
Nos. 170217 & 170694, 10 December2012.
!It
""
Iii
"
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court ofAppeals, et al.
Page 6of31
~., .
..
"
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 7 o/31
A copy of the Complaint dated 03 March 2015 and its annexes are
attached hereto as Annex "D" and "Annex D-1", respectively.
17
Special Panel of Investigators v. Jejomar Erwin S. Binay Jr. (OMB-C-C-15-0062).
Special Panel ofInvestigators v. Jejomar Erwin S. Binay Jr. (QMB~C-C-15-0063).
18
fl(
""
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
PageBo/31
Order within five (5) days from receipt (a copy of the Ombudsman's
Indorsement to the DILG is attached hereto as Annex "F"), the DILG,
though NCR Regional Director Renato L. Brion, caused the implementation
of the Suspension Order. A copy of the Suspension Order was posted on the
wall of the Makati City Hall, after diligent efforts to have it personally
received by respondent Binay failed, given that all the gates of the Makati
City Hall were closed and sealed that even some City emp'loyees could not
enter the building.
. . ,
' '
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 9 o/31
26. The therein petitioner insists that a "TRO" having been issued
by respondent Court of Appeals, herein petitioner committed contempt of
court when she submitted her Manifestation that the TRO was moot.
Petitioner submits that respondent Binay conveniently ignores and glosses
over the documented facts that when respondent Court of Appeals First
Resolution was issued, the Suspension Order had priorly, been served on him
on March 11, 2015 and was fully implemented otj 16 March 2015 at 8:30 in
the morning. This much is evident in Binay's A{nended and Supplemental
Petition for Contempt, in which he glaringly omits to mention the
aforestated documented facts.
28. Hence, the filing of the instant Petition for the Honorable Court
to intervene in the patently unlawful acts being committed by respondents.
ISSUES
I
... !If
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page I I of 31
____________________________________________________________ ... _______ _
i
GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR WRIT OF
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I
flt'
c.
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court qfAppeals, et al.
Page 12of31
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSSION
I'
I)
21
n Record of the Constitutional Commission (Vol. 2), 26 July 1986, p. 294.
.
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Samaniego, G.R. No. 175573. 11 Septerryber 2008.
:
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 13of31
31. Verily, therefore, the texts of the 1987 Constitution and of R.A.
No. 6770 leave no room to doubt the spirit that animates them. The need to
make the Office of the Ombudsman practically supreme in its own sphere -
the fight against graft and corruption - is so paramount that even apolitical
bodies like courts of law are prohibited from interfering with the exercise of
its investigative functions.
33. Wisely, the Framers and the legislators were able to recognize,
undoubtedly with the benefit of past experience, that an injunctive writ from
a court, obtained through fair means or foul, can undermine the
independence of the Office of the Ombudsman just as effectively as direct
harassment or political pressure would; and so, erring on the side of caution,
it had been decided that the protection to be accorded to the Office of the
Ombudsman in the performance of its constitutiortal duty should be broad
enough to cover even the injunctive reliefs traditionally obtainable from the
courts.
34. The foregoing only serve to highlight the patent and grave error
of respondent Court of Appeals when it issued the!,. Questioned Resolutions.
Even as the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6770,: as well as a long line of
jurisprudence acknowledge the independence 'bf the Office of the
Ombudsman, respondent Court of Appeals ignored the sam~. recklessly
interfering with an ongoing investigation against respondent Binay.
Respondent Court of Appeals' actions, directed as they were at an
23
Cabrera vs. Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 157419-20. 13 December 2004.
1):
PETITION
' ' Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court qf Appeals, et al.
Page 14of31
-~
..
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 15of31
24
36. As this Honorable Court explained in Ombudsman vs. Pelino,
preventive suspension is merely a "preventive measure," or a "preliminary
step in an administrative investigation." While not imposed in all
administrative cases as a matter of course, preventive suspensions are
resorted to when the prevailing circumstances of a particular case so
warrant, as when there is a need to "prevent the accused from using ]}is
position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential
witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of
the case against him. " 25
,, ,;
40. Given then the independence vested ljy the 1987 Constitution
on the Office of the Ombudsman, and in view of: the express mandate of
R.A. No. 6770, particularly Section 14 thereot respondent Court of
24
G.R. No. 179261, 18 April 2008.
2s Id.
26
Garcia vs. Mojica, G.R. No. 139043, I 0 September 1999.
,,
.r
.,
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court qfAppeals, et al.
Page 16of31
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals' First Resolution should be regarded for what it is: an act tainted by
grave abuse of discretion. Indeed, if the Office of the Ombudsman's
constitutionally-guaranteed independence were to mean anything, it would
have to include the freedom to conduct administrative proceedings openly,
decisively and without undue interference. If the directive in Section 14 of
R.A. No. 6770 is to be respected, respondent Court of Appeals should be
prevented from further delaying, compromising and interfering with the
ongoing resolution of the cases against respondent Binay. '
..
41. When it deprived the Office of the Ombudsman the right to
avail of a legally-recognized remedial measure - preventive suspension -
respondent Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion and wantonly
ignored the independence and mandate of the Office of the Ombudsman.
2
Instead of according it the ''highest deference" .7 that it deserves, the
Suspension Order was capriciously and whimsically disturbed by respondent
Court of Appeals, unmindful of how such act would delay the investigation
and adversely affect the ability of the Ombudsman to resolve the complaints
against respondent Binay with justice, decisiveness and dispatch.
v .
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Evangelista, G.R. No. 177211. 13 March 2009.
--~ y
"
I
.,
. '
PETITION
Office of the Ombud~man vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 17of31
---------------------------------------------------------------------
28
Sec. 2, Article XI, 1987 Constitution. ,
29
See Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA and Mojica, G.R. No. 146486, 04 March 2005.
30
See Lecaroz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 130872, 25 March 1999.
31
A.M. No. 88-4-5433, 15 April 1988.
~ '-~
I
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 18of31
---------------------------------------------------------------------
50. It is clear from the foregoing that petitioner runs the risk of
being imprisoned, possibly for an indefinite period, if she is cited for
contempt. In that case, she will be., for all intents and purposes, removed
from office and prevented from discharging her mandate. This is precisely
the evil sought to be prevented by the 1987 Constitution when it designated
a very limited class of public officials as removable only by impeachment.
Needless to state, there is a paramount need to shield these public officials,
including petitioner, from the threat of removal froin office by means other
than impeachment, because of the significance of the public functions they
exercise.
32
Soriano vs. Court <~(Appeals, G. R. No. 128938, 04 June 2004.
~
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court ofAppeals. et al.
Page 19of31
---------------------------------------------------------------------
\
'""
' ~ ;
.,
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court ofAppeals, et al.
Page 20of31
adverse parties can simply follow respondent Binaf s tack and charge her
for contempt.
33
TJDCORP vs. CSC, G. R. No. 182249, 05 March 2013.
34
Republic vs. Camacho, G.R. No. 185604, 13 June 2013.
35
Section 14, R.A. No. 6770 .
...
..
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court ofAppeals, et al.
Page 21of31
---------------------------------------------------------------------
36
57. In his Petition for Certiorari dated 10 March 2015, respondent
Binay alleges that he is "entitled to injunctive relief since he has a clear and
unmistakable right to hold public office, having validly won by a landslide
vote in the 2010 and 2013 local elections. " 37 This claim of a right to public
office is bereft of legal basis.
36
A copy of the Petition for Certiorari is attached hereto as Annex "J".
37
Paragraph 7.5 of the Petition for Certiorari ..
38
First Resolution, p. 5.
39
CSC vs. Javier, G.R. No. 173264, 22 February 2008.
4
Carabeo vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, 04 December 2009.
41
42
Carabeo vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, 04 December 2009.
CSC vs. Alfonso. G.R. No. 179452, 11 June 2009.
43
Carabeo vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 178000 and 178003, 04 December 2009.
,,
, ...
PETITION
Office ofthe Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 22of31
64. Under the statute, two requisites must concur to render the
preventive suspension order valid: ( 1) that irt the judgment of the
Ombudsman or the Deputy Ombudsman, the evidence of guilt is strong; and
(2) either: (a) that the offense charged involves dishonesty, oppression or
44
Paragraph 7.4 of the Petition for Certiorari.
45
Aldovino vs. Come/ec, G.R. No. 184836, 23 December 2009 ..
Board of Trustees ofthe GS!S vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 170463, 02 Febr~ary 2011
46
47
Ombudsman vs. CA and Magbanua, G.R. No. 168079, 17 July 2007. '
... .(
'
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court qfAppeals, et al.
Page 23of31
66. In fact, even this Honorable Court, on more than one occasion,
showed restraint and upheld its policy not to interfere with the Ombudsman's
exercise of its investigatory and prosecutory powers; this rule having been
based on the respect for the initiative and independence inherent in said
office, which is "beholden to no one, acts as the champion of the people and
the preserver of the integrity of the public service. " 50
. . ..
c,
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 24of31
R.A. No. 6770, is given the power to suspend a public official pending
investigation if "in his judgment" the evidence presented before him tends
to show that the official's guilt h5 strong and if the further requisites
51
enumerated in Section 24 are present.
69. It bears to note that in the cases filed against respondent Binay,
petitioner exercised her judgment and found the evidence of guilt to be
strong on the basis of the evidence presented in the complaint, which
included sworn statements of alleged losing bidders and members of the
Makati Bids and Awards Committee (attesting to irregularities in the
procurement subject of the complaint), documents negating the purported
publication of bids, disbursement vouchers, checks and official receipts.
Consideration of the foregoing pieces of evidence suffices to justify the
issuance of the Suspension Order, since the said remedy is merely a
preliminary step in an administrative investigation. 52 It does not even require
prior notice nor hearing. 53 At such initial stage, there is no requirement that
there be a finding of substantial evidence of guilt to warrant the issuance of
an order for preventive suspension. All that is needed is that the requisites
under Section 24 be complied with.
56
Cojuangco vs. Republic, G.R. No. 180705, 27 November 2012
PETITION
Office ofthe Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 26 o/31
77. Petitioner has a clear legal right that she has an interest in
protecting, and which can only be preserved during the pendency of the
Petition if an injunctive writ is issued by this Honorable Court. A "clear
legal right" means one clearly founded on or ; granted by law or is
enforceable as a matter of law. 57
Boncodin vs. National Power Corporation Employees Consolidated U~ion (NECU), 503 SCRA 611, 623
57
(2006) .
.
' -.
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals, et al.
Page 27of31
J'
PETITION
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court qf Appeals, et al.
Page 29 of3/
PRAYER
.. .
WHEREFORE, petitioner respectfully prays that this Honorable
Court:
2. After due notice and hearing, render judgment and issue a: (a) writ
of certiorari ANNULLING the questioned Resolution dated 16
March 2015, and (b) writ of prohibition COMMANDING
respondent Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) to desist from further
proceeding with the Amended and Supplemental Petition for
Contempt as against Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.
Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are likewise prayed
for.
II Signatories to follow//
...
Roll No. 44957
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 08505
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0016556
:--t+-8!Y7ll \:l.~J*T-
'tIE,RMES L. OCAMPO
Assistant Solicitor General
Roll No. 40169
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 09135
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0016556
,/j/v{ J( ~
RAYMUND I. RIGO DON
Senior State Solicitor
Roll No. 39730
IBP Lifetime Roll No. 013395, 2/12/15
MCLE Compliance No. IV-0019451
Copy furnished:
COURT OF APPEALS
Ma. Orosa Street,
Ermita Manila
(CA-G.R. SP No. 139453 &
CA-G.R. SP No. 139504)
'
.'.' <'I
EXPLANATION
/l--A f-~
'
RAYMUND I. RIGODON
....
~
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING ,
2. I have caused the preparation of and have read the foregoing petition;
3. I have read and understood the.. contents thereof and the same are true of
my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records;
5. Should I hereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed
or, is pending before the Honorable Court, the Court of Appeals, or different
divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, I undertake to
promptly inform the Court of that fact within five (5) days therefrom, as well as of
the status thereof.
co
Ombudsman
;j
:MARIBETll\TAY'fAYON-PADIOS
budstnan '
in\stering Officer
Ji
r"'_...._ . ~- . ,
i OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
!1tit
CERTIFIED
By: PH.~~? 5~'.l-HJ- ~ i ! p~ IWllBl!flln'i.
! Date: CONCHITA CAP.PIO MORALES
OMllllllSMAtl
~I' ........ ..
/' . . f . J."
(__e,_.,.,,-lt;... ~~<-.J.;,__:j__.':>;- '.fM..
';t CONCHITA CARPIO MGJU.Lm;
CJmluachman :
'
TlN no.
I no-11 s-'1~6 I
Blood T}'.oe '
0 i'
Tel. No.
(02) 809-82911
'~
Sitmillun: nflluldc1
(. ,...,
Republic of the Philippines)
Quezon City )S.S.
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
That on 25 March 2015, I served copies of the Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition dated 25 March 2015 in G.R. entitled "Conchita Carpio Morales vs
Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr. " pursuant to Section
13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, in the following manner, to wit:
ADDRESSEES
COURT OF APPEALS
Padre Faura, Manila
r
ATTY. CLARO F. CERTEZA By Registered Mail
Subido Pagente Certeza Mendoza & Binay Law Offices Registry Receipt No. \I ~1
~c..'f'b
5/F Prince Building, 117 Rada Street 6-J.b.-!5
Legaspi Village, 1129 Makati City
by depositing copies of the pleading on 25 March 2015 with the Central Post Office,
Quezon City, as evidenced by the registry receipt numbers indicated above, after the
names of the party-addressees, which original receipts are attached to the original of the
aforesaid Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition, and with instructions to the postmaster
to return the mail to the sender after ten(lO) days, if undelivered to the party-addressee
concerned. :
JOS~L~LLEZA
' Affiant
,;
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 25th day of March 2015, affiant
exhibiting to me his Office of the Ombudsman I.D. No. 940123, bearing his photograph
and signature. '
"'
'
@/1...~k~_.cc.:1DJ1'-
,.,'.i!t'\~1fm'?.Hl'I',.\
..!~,t.-110i;! f~l.l,HfJH ~!PMP!~ ...
,, . rir:~liJJ!.~!.l Qtt\\l\idtll.latdL,f:,.j: :1.t1$1 ...:t ~-r -~ j
CRTIFlt;D
/ PHO Cl. Yr=
ruv no. .. i fl\--.. -,.~~ ~ .__,......_ rsf :t..r...- l f
;I r ;u . -...DOD. ~AVENDANO .,.,.,....___
r-------1161BS~-----=i
. - .,
-~: ......,. "" m1rus1i'a!lllii1l?ucGI'.'.'.'.''"
. ._
,.
~ei!_ _ _------~-~
L____. 0 :=J
111 +..'J~~ ul ..:u'c'y..:ncy, ph;;nc uuul)
Na111e
r Ag~~~~~-==:J
r_ii:ess P5 8 5l7 LB H"uo ,;.,,,;.;,
-.
~~
------~---
'\11:;t1lo6h11i:.1fll11llli:1
.,
..."
'
VERIFIED DECLARATION
,SELIT~
Administering Aide II
MA. . ~~
-~ . -1'1