Carpio-Morales v CA

G.R. No 217126-27, November 10,2015
Petitioner: CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES
Respondents: COURT OF APPEALS (SIXTH DIVISION) and JEJOMAR ERWIN S.
BINAY, JR.
THESIS STATEMENT:
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed on March 25, 2015 by
petitioner Conchita Carpio-Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman
(Ombudsman), through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), assailing: (a) the
Resolution 3 dated March 16, 2015 of public respondent the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. SP No. 139453, which granted private respondent Jejomar Erwin S. Binay,
Jr.'s (Binay, Jr.) prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against
the implementation of the Joint Order 4 dated March 10, 2015 of the Ombudsman in
OMB-C-A-15-0058 to 0063 (preventive suspension order) preventively suspending
him and several other public officers and employees of the City Government of Makati,
for six (6) months without pay; and (b) the Resolution 5 dated March 20, 2015 of the
CA, ordering the Ombudsman to comment on Binay, Jr.'s petition for contempt 6 in
CA-G.R. SP No. 139504.
FACTS:


On July 2014, a complaint/affidavit was filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman against Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr.'s (Binay, Jr.) and other public
officers and employees of the City Government of Makati (Binay, Jr., et al),
accusing them of Plunder and violation of Republic Act No. 3019,otherwise
known as "The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," in connection with the
five (5) phases of the procurement and construction of the Makati City Hall
Parking Building (Makati Parking Building).
A Special Panel of Investigators was constituted to conduct a fact-finding
investigation. The panel filed a complaint (OMB Complaint) against Binay, Jr.,
et al, charging them with six (6) administrative cases for Grave Misconduct,
Serious Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service,
and six (6) criminal cases for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019, Malversation
of Public Funds, and Falsification of Public Documents (OMB Cases).





As to Binay, Jr., the OMB Complaint alleged that he was involved in anomalous
activities attending the procurement and construction phases of the Makati
Parking Building project, committed during his first (2010-2013) and second/
present term (2013-2016) as City Mayor of Makati. In particular, Binay, Jr.
issued the Notice of Awards for Phase III, IV and V of the Makati Parking
Building project to Hilmarc's Construction Corporation and executed the
corresponding contracts without the required publication and the lack of
architectural design, and approved the release of funds therefor.
Before Binay, Jr., et al.'s filing of their counter-affidavits, the Ombudsman
issued the challenged order placing Binay, Jr., et al. under preventive
suspension for not more than six (6) months without pay, during the pendency
of the OMB Cases. Consequently, the Ombudsman directed DILG Secretary
Manuel A. Roxas II to immediately implement the preventive suspension order
against Binay, Jr., et al., upon receipt of the same.
The Ombudsman ruled that the requisites for the preventive suspension of a
public officer are present, finding that: (a) the evidence of Binay, Jr., et al.'s guilt
was strong, (b) Binay, Jr., et al.were administratively charged and said charges,
if proven to be true, warrant removal from public service under the Revised
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), and (c) Binay,
Jr., et al .'s respective positions give them access to public records and allow
them to influence possible witnesses; hence, their continued stay in office may
prejudice the investigation relative to the OMB Cases filed against them.
On March 11, 2015, Binay, Jr. filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of
Appeals seeking the nullification of the preventive suspension order and
praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO). Binay, Jr.
argued that any anomalous activity relating to Phases III to V transpired during
his first term and that his re-election as City Mayor of Makati for a second term
effectively condoned his administrative liability therefor.
On March 16, 2015, at around 8:24 a.m., DILG Regional Director Renato Brion
caused the implementation of the preventive suspension order by posting a
copy of the order on the wall of the Makati City Hall after failing to personally
serve the same on Binay, Jr. as the points of entry to the Makati City Hall were
closed.
At noon of the same day, the CA issued a Resolution (dated March 16, 2015)
granting Binay, Jr.'s prayer for a TRO notwithstanding Vice Mayor Pena, Jr.'s
assumption of duties as Acting Mayor earlier that day. Citing the case of



Governor Garcia, Jr. v. CA, the CA applied the condonation doctrine espoused
by Binay, Jr.
Binay, Jr. likewise filed a petition for contempt with the Court of Appeals
accusing Secretary Roxas, Director Brion, et al of deliberately refusing to obey
the CA. The CA directed the Ombudsman to file her comment thereto.
The Ombudsman, without filing a prior motion for reconsideration before the
Court of Appeals, filed the present petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before
the Supreme Court claiming that: (a) the CA had no jurisdiction to grant Binay,
Jr.'s prayer for a TRO, citing Section 14 of RA 6770 or "The Ombudsman Act
of 1989," which states that no injunctive writ could be issued to delay the
Ombudsman's investigation unless there is prima facie evidence that the
subject matter thereof is outside the latter's jurisdiction and (b) the Ombudsman
is an impeachable officer, and therefore, cannot be subjected to contempt
proceedings
In the meantime, the CA issued a Resolution dated April 6, 2015 granting
Binay, Jr.'s prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The CA found that Binay,
Jr. is entitled to the nullification of the preventive suspension order, in view of
the condonation doctrine, citing Aguinaldo v. Santos.
ISSUES:


Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to issue the Temporary
Restraining Order on the preventive suspension order issued by the
Ombudsman.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals acted in grave abuse of discretion
when it used the Condonation Doctrine.
HELD

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd Paragraph of Sec. 14, RA 6770, is
vague, unconstitutional and invalid. The SC relied on its ruling in the landmark
case of Fabian v. Desierto, 356 Phil. 787 (1998), which, in turn, held that the
4th Paragraph of Sec. 27, RA 6770, is void, as it had the effect of increasing
the appellate jurisdiction of the SC without its advice and concurrence, in
violation of Sec. 30, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution.

The Supreme Court abandoned the condonation doctrine, but ruled that the CA
did not act in excess of jurisdiction in issuing the TRO, as it did so base on good
case law, considering that the abandonment is prospective in nature.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED . Under the premises of this
Decision, the Court resolves as follows:
(a) the second paragraph of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 6770 is declared
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, while the policy against the issuance of provisional
injunctive writs by courts other than the Supreme Court to enjoin an investigation
conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman under the FIrst paragraph of the said
provision is DECLARED ineffective until the Court adopts the same as part of the
rules of procedure through an administrative circular duly issued therefor;
(b) The condonation doctrine is ABANDONED, but the abandonment is
PROSPECTIVE in effect;