August 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > August 2007 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 175503 : August 07, 2007] EDDIE U. TAMONDONG V. OMBUDSMAN/TANODBAYAN MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ AND/OR OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN:
[G.R. No. 175503 : August 07, 2007]
EDDIE U. TAMONDONG V. OMBUDSMAN/TANODBAYAN MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ AND/OR OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated August 7, 2007.
G.R. No. 175503 - (Eddie U. Tamondong v. Ombudsman/Tanodbayan Merceditas Gutierrez and/or Office of the Ombudsman)
This refers to the Petition for Mandamus filed by petitioner on December 7, 2006 to compel respondents to resolve: (1) the complaint in OMB-C-C-0097-C entitled "Eddie U. Tamondong v. Vicente Y. Emano, et al. "; and (2) the urgent motion for preventive suspension of the public officials involved in the case.
On October 22, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the respondent Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) charging several public officials of Cagayan de Oro City with grave misconduct and violation of Section 3 (e), (g) and (i) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended.[1] Counter-affidavits were filed by the public officials concerned on March 26, 2004 and April 5, 2004.
In a letter dated April 8, 2005, respondent OMB, through Assistant Ombudsman Jude C. Caingat, informed petitioner that the complaint was already submitted for resolution, but there would be a delay in the resolution of the complaint, as there was a backlog in the resolution of cases filed with respondent OMB.[2]
On August 22, 2005, the three-man investigating panel[3] designated to conduct an investigation on petitioner's charges issued an Order calling on the parties and the Commission on Audit-Special Audit Team to appear for clarificatory hearing on September 30, 2005.[4]
On November 5, 2005, petitioner wrote then Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo pleading for immediate resolution of the complaint.[5]
On November 7, 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion for the preventive suspension of the public officials involved.[6]
On November 9, 2005, the investigating panel issued an Order requiring the public officials concerned to submit various documents relating to the case.[7]
The public officials concerned filed their Opposition dated November 22, 2005 to petitioner's motion for preventive suspension. Petitioner filed his Reply dated December 1, 2005. The public officials concerned filed their Rejoinder dated December 15, 2005.
On December 20, 2005, petitioner filed a motion to inhibit GIPO Mandrilla. The public officials concerned filed their Opposition dated December 27, 2005 to petitioner's motion to inhibit. Petitioner filed a Consolidated Sur-rejoinder and Reply to Opposition dated January 4, 2006.
On April 24, 2006, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent Merceditas Gutierrez appealing for resolution of the complaint.[8] He reiterated his appeal for early resolution in a letter dated October 5, 2006.[9]
On December 7, 2006, petitioner filed the present petition for mandamus, claiming that this case calls for the issuance of a writ of mandamus since respondents failed to promptly resolve the complaint which he filed on October 22, 2003 or more than three (3) years ago, fourteen (14) months from the clarificatory hearing on September 30, 2005 when the case was allegedly submitted for resolution.[10]
In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the petition should be dismissed for failure to observe the hierarchy of courts; that, in any case, mandamus is not the proper remedy because petitioner failed to exhaust other available remedies and there is no unlawful neglect on the part of respondent.[11]
The petition for mandamus lacks merit.
Settled is the rule that the performance of an official act or duty, which necessarily involves the exercise of discretion or judgment, cannot be compelled by mandamus, except in cases where there is "gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority."[12] Petitioner failed to show that these exceptions apply to this case.
While pursuant to Section 16, Article III of the Constitution,[13] any party to a case has the right to demand that all officials tasked with the administration of justice expedite its disposition, the concept of "speedy disposition" is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.[14] A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient.[15] "Speedy disposition of cases" is consistent with reasonable delays.[16] In Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan,[17] the Court took judicial notice of the fact that the nature of the Office of the Ombudsman encourages individuals who clamor for efficient government service to lodge freely their complaints against alleged wrongdoings of government personnel,[18] and a steady stream of cases reaching the Ombudsman inevitably results;[19] naturally, disposition of those cases would take some time.[20]
Moreover, while the last action taken by investigating panel was the order dated November 9, 2005 which required the public officials to submit the documents relating to the case, petitioner himself contributed to the delay when, through a motion to inhibit dated December 5, 2005, he moved that a panel member inhibit himself from the investigation. The public officials concerned filed their Opposition dated December 27, 2005 to petitioner's motion to inhibit. Petitioner filed a Consolidated Sur-rejoinder and Reply to Opposition dated January 4, 2006. Thus, the investigating panel could not resolve the complaint, as well as act on the motion for preventive suspension, since petitioner had a pending motion to inhibit one of the members of the investigating panel.
The Court agrees with the OSG that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the present petition for mandamus. The appropriate motion should have been filed with the investigating panel. Respondent Ombudsman could not have properly acted on petitioner's plea for early resolution, since the case is not yet before her for appropriate action or approval.[21]
Thus, there is no persuasive, much less compelling, reason to grant in this case the radical relief of mandamus.
WHEREFORE, the petition for mandamus is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 175503 - (Eddie U. Tamondong v. Ombudsman/Tanodbayan Merceditas Gutierrez and/or Office of the Ombudsman)
This refers to the Petition for Mandamus filed by petitioner on December 7, 2006 to compel respondents to resolve: (1) the complaint in OMB-C-C-0097-C entitled "Eddie U. Tamondong v. Vicente Y. Emano, et al. "; and (2) the urgent motion for preventive suspension of the public officials involved in the case.
On October 22, 2003, petitioner filed a complaint-affidavit with the respondent Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) charging several public officials of Cagayan de Oro City with grave misconduct and violation of Section 3 (e), (g) and (i) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, as amended.[1] Counter-affidavits were filed by the public officials concerned on March 26, 2004 and April 5, 2004.
In a letter dated April 8, 2005, respondent OMB, through Assistant Ombudsman Jude C. Caingat, informed petitioner that the complaint was already submitted for resolution, but there would be a delay in the resolution of the complaint, as there was a backlog in the resolution of cases filed with respondent OMB.[2]
On August 22, 2005, the three-man investigating panel[3] designated to conduct an investigation on petitioner's charges issued an Order calling on the parties and the Commission on Audit-Special Audit Team to appear for clarificatory hearing on September 30, 2005.[4]
On November 5, 2005, petitioner wrote then Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo pleading for immediate resolution of the complaint.[5]
On November 7, 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion for the preventive suspension of the public officials involved.[6]
On November 9, 2005, the investigating panel issued an Order requiring the public officials concerned to submit various documents relating to the case.[7]
The public officials concerned filed their Opposition dated November 22, 2005 to petitioner's motion for preventive suspension. Petitioner filed his Reply dated December 1, 2005. The public officials concerned filed their Rejoinder dated December 15, 2005.
On December 20, 2005, petitioner filed a motion to inhibit GIPO Mandrilla. The public officials concerned filed their Opposition dated December 27, 2005 to petitioner's motion to inhibit. Petitioner filed a Consolidated Sur-rejoinder and Reply to Opposition dated January 4, 2006.
On April 24, 2006, petitioner wrote a letter to respondent Merceditas Gutierrez appealing for resolution of the complaint.[8] He reiterated his appeal for early resolution in a letter dated October 5, 2006.[9]
On December 7, 2006, petitioner filed the present petition for mandamus, claiming that this case calls for the issuance of a writ of mandamus since respondents failed to promptly resolve the complaint which he filed on October 22, 2003 or more than three (3) years ago, fourteen (14) months from the clarificatory hearing on September 30, 2005 when the case was allegedly submitted for resolution.[10]
In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that the petition should be dismissed for failure to observe the hierarchy of courts; that, in any case, mandamus is not the proper remedy because petitioner failed to exhaust other available remedies and there is no unlawful neglect on the part of respondent.[11]
The petition for mandamus lacks merit.
Settled is the rule that the performance of an official act or duty, which necessarily involves the exercise of discretion or judgment, cannot be compelled by mandamus, except in cases where there is "gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority."[12] Petitioner failed to show that these exceptions apply to this case.
While pursuant to Section 16, Article III of the Constitution,[13] any party to a case has the right to demand that all officials tasked with the administration of justice expedite its disposition, the concept of "speedy disposition" is a relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept.[14] A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is not sufficient.[15] "Speedy disposition of cases" is consistent with reasonable delays.[16] In Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan,[17] the Court took judicial notice of the fact that the nature of the Office of the Ombudsman encourages individuals who clamor for efficient government service to lodge freely their complaints against alleged wrongdoings of government personnel,[18] and a steady stream of cases reaching the Ombudsman inevitably results;[19] naturally, disposition of those cases would take some time.[20]
Moreover, while the last action taken by investigating panel was the order dated November 9, 2005 which required the public officials to submit the documents relating to the case, petitioner himself contributed to the delay when, through a motion to inhibit dated December 5, 2005, he moved that a panel member inhibit himself from the investigation. The public officials concerned filed their Opposition dated December 27, 2005 to petitioner's motion to inhibit. Petitioner filed a Consolidated Sur-rejoinder and Reply to Opposition dated January 4, 2006. Thus, the investigating panel could not resolve the complaint, as well as act on the motion for preventive suspension, since petitioner had a pending motion to inhibit one of the members of the investigating panel.
The Court agrees with the OSG that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the present petition for mandamus. The appropriate motion should have been filed with the investigating panel. Respondent Ombudsman could not have properly acted on petitioner's plea for early resolution, since the case is not yet before her for appropriate action or approval.[21]
Thus, there is no persuasive, much less compelling, reason to grant in this case the radical relief of mandamus.
WHEREFORE, the petition for mandamus is DENIED DUE COURSE and DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA D, VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
MA. LUISA D, VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 12.
[2] Id. at 73.
[3] Composed of Assistant Ombudsman Pelagio S. Apostol, Director Jose T. de Jesus, Jr. and Graft Investigation and Prosecution Officer I (GIPO) Bonifacio G. Mandrilla.
[4] Rollo, p. 75.
[5] Id. at 23.
[6] Id. at 26.
[7] Id. at 77.
[8] Id. at 30.
[9] Id. at 33.
[10] Id. at 3.
[11] Id. at 33.
[12] See Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman, 366 Phil. 568 (1999) citing Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, 335 Phil. 766, 772 (1997); First Philippine Holdings Corporation v. Sandiganbayan, 323 Phil. 36 (1996); Kant Kwong v. Presidential Commission on Good Government, No. L-79484, December 7, 1987, 156 SCRA 222.
[13] SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
[14] Yulo v. People, G.R. No. 142762, March 4, 2005, 452 SCRA 705; Alvizo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101689, March 17, 1993, 220 SCRA 55, 63.
[15] Yulo v. People, supra note 14; Bernat v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 158018, May 20, 2004, 428 SCRA 787, 789; Binay v. Sandiganbayan, 374 Phil. 413, 447 (1999).
[16] Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 146368-69, October 18, 2004, 440 SCRA 423, 426; Caballero v. Alfonso, Jr., No. L-45647, August 21, 1987, SCRA 153, 163.
[17] Supra.
[18] Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 16; Raro v. Sandiganbayan, 390 Phil. 916, 942 (2000).
[19] Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 16; Dansal v. Fernandez, Sr., 383 Phil. 897, 909 (2000).
[20] Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan, supra note 16, at 426.
[21] Section 4, Rule 2 of Administarative Order No. 07 (Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman) provides:
Sec. 4 Procedure: x x x
g) Upon the termination of the preliminary investigation, the investigating officer shall forward the records of the case together with his resolution to the designated authorities for their appropriate action thereon.
No information may be filed and no complaint may be dismissed without the written authority or approval of the Ombudsman in cases falling within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, or of the proper Deputy Ombudsman in all other cases. (Emphasis supplied).
