November 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > November 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 188536 : November 15, 2010] OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. JERICARDO S. MONDRAGON:
[G.R. No. 188536 : November 15, 2010]
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN V. JERICARDO S. MONDRAGON
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 November 2010 which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 188536 (Office of the Ombudsman v. Jericardo S. Mondragon). - Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the Office of the Ombudsman, assailing the Resolution[1] dated June 17, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 81054, denying outright its Omnibus Motion to Intervene and to Admit the Attached Motion for Reconsideration.
Respondent Jericardo S. Mondragon filed a complaint for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and R.A. No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, against five employees of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Quezon City, before the Office of the Ombudsman.
In an Order[2] dated March 12, 2003, petitioner dismissed the complaint. It held that the complaint, questioning the legality and propriety of former BFAR Legal Officer Annaliza A. Vitug's promotion to Chief Fishing Regulations Officer, was the proper subject of a "protest" action, pursuant to the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. Petitioner noted that respondent had, in fact, already availed of such remedy.
Respondent, in due time, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in an Order[3] dated April 26, 2003 for being "premature and unwaiTanted."[4] Petitioner noted that the dispute had already been referred by respondent himself to the BFAR Director and to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (DA). Therefore, petitioner said, it should not take action in the case, so as not to preempt the power of these authorities to settle controversies involving employees of their agency. Moreover, in accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the agency concerned should be given a chance to correct its error and complete its administrative processes.[5]
Respondent then filed a Petition for Review before the CA, assailing petitioner's Orders. On December 24, 2008, the CA promulgated a Decision[6] partially granting respondent's petition, to wit:
Further, the CA found that the case fell under a recognized exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, there being unreasonable delay or official inaction that would greatly prejudice complainant (herein respondent).[9]
Vitug, respondent in the CA case, filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, arguing that the CA should have applied the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies since there is still a pending complaint for her disqualification for the position of Chief Fishing Regulations Officer before the Director of BFAR and the DA Secretary.[10]
On the other hand, petitioner filed, on February 11, 2009, an Omnibus Motion to Intervene and to Admit the Attached Motion for Reconsideration.[11] The CA denied petitioner's motion on June 17, 2009. The CA ruled that petitioner's Omnibus Motion could no longer be allowed because Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of Court states that intervention is only proper before a judgment has been rendered; and the court had already rendered a decision in the case. Moreover, the CA said that the court or agency concerned in a petition for review under Rule 43 should not be impleaded as respondent in the case.
Hence, on July 7, 2009, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review[12] before this Court, asserting that it had sufficient legal interest to intervene in the case before the CA.
In a Manifestation[13] dated August 3, 2009, petitioner informed this Court that the CA had promulgated an Amended Decision[14] on July 13, 2009, partially granting Vitug's Motion for Reconsideration and modifying its December 24, 2008 ruling, to wit:
Respondent, in his Comment[17] on this Petition for Review, averred that the promulgation of the CA's Amended Decision has rendered the issue raised in the Petition moot and academic. He avers that since the "flesh and blood of the dispute - whether or not [the] Special Former 7th Division of the Coun of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it directed the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation on petitioner Jericardo S. Mondragon's criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 [-] has already disappeared," the Petition should be dismissed.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Manifestation[18] informing the Court that it is dispensing with the filing of a Reply, considering that the issue has become moot and academic, with the promulgation of the CA's Amended Decision.
In view of the CA's Amended Decision dated July 13, 2009, the main controversy in this Petition has been rendered moot and academic.
An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.[19]
Petitioner raises one major issue in its Petition: whether the CA correctly denied its Omnibus Motion to Intervene and to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration in proceedings where its (petitioner's) decision is the subject matter of the controversy.
With the Amended Decision, the reason for petitioner's intervention before the CA has ceased to exist.
To recall, the CA, in its December 24, 2008 Decision, had ruled that the administrative charges for violation of R.A. No. 3019 had prescribed because these were filed more than one year after the occurrence of the act or omission complained of.[20] Thus, only the criminal aspect of the complaint would have to be acted upon. However, with the deletion of that directive, there is no issue left for the CA to resolve.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED for being MOOT AND ACADEMIC. Peralta, J., no part, his spouse having concurred in the assailed Court of Appeals decision; Bersamin, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 29 July 2009.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 188536 (Office of the Ombudsman v. Jericardo S. Mondragon). - Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by the Office of the Ombudsman, assailing the Resolution[1] dated June 17, 2009 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 81054, denying outright its Omnibus Motion to Intervene and to Admit the Attached Motion for Reconsideration.
Respondent Jericardo S. Mondragon filed a complaint for violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and R.A. No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, against five employees of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), Quezon City, before the Office of the Ombudsman.
In an Order[2] dated March 12, 2003, petitioner dismissed the complaint. It held that the complaint, questioning the legality and propriety of former BFAR Legal Officer Annaliza A. Vitug's promotion to Chief Fishing Regulations Officer, was the proper subject of a "protest" action, pursuant to the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292. Petitioner noted that respondent had, in fact, already availed of such remedy.
Respondent, in due time, filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied in an Order[3] dated April 26, 2003 for being "premature and unwaiTanted."[4] Petitioner noted that the dispute had already been referred by respondent himself to the BFAR Director and to the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (DA). Therefore, petitioner said, it should not take action in the case, so as not to preempt the power of these authorities to settle controversies involving employees of their agency. Moreover, in accordance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, the agency concerned should be given a chance to correct its error and complete its administrative processes.[5]
Respondent then filed a Petition for Review before the CA, assailing petitioner's Orders. On December 24, 2008, the CA promulgated a Decision[6] partially granting respondent's petition, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The orders of the Ombudsman dated April 26, 2003 and October 6, 2003 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the criminal aspect thereof is concerned. Accordingly, the Ombudsman is directed to conduct preliminary investigation on Mondragon's criminal complaint against respondents for violation of Rep. Act No. 3019.[7]The CA held that the Ombudsman had the duty to investigate and prosecute civil, criminal, and administrative offenses committed by government officers and employees. Thus, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is inapplicable to the case, considering that the Ombudsman had primary jurisdiction over respondent's complaint. The CA said that respondent properly filed his complaint before the Ombudsman, which by law is mandated to investigate and prosecute cases for violations ofR.A. No. 3019.[8]
Further, the CA found that the case fell under a recognized exception to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, there being unreasonable delay or official inaction that would greatly prejudice complainant (herein respondent).[9]
Vitug, respondent in the CA case, filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, arguing that the CA should have applied the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies since there is still a pending complaint for her disqualification for the position of Chief Fishing Regulations Officer before the Director of BFAR and the DA Secretary.[10]
On the other hand, petitioner filed, on February 11, 2009, an Omnibus Motion to Intervene and to Admit the Attached Motion for Reconsideration.[11] The CA denied petitioner's motion on June 17, 2009. The CA ruled that petitioner's Omnibus Motion could no longer be allowed because Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of Court states that intervention is only proper before a judgment has been rendered; and the court had already rendered a decision in the case. Moreover, the CA said that the court or agency concerned in a petition for review under Rule 43 should not be impleaded as respondent in the case.
Hence, on July 7, 2009, petitioner filed the present Petition for Review[12] before this Court, asserting that it had sufficient legal interest to intervene in the case before the CA.
In a Manifestation[13] dated August 3, 2009, petitioner informed this Court that the CA had promulgated an Amended Decision[14] on July 13, 2009, partially granting Vitug's Motion for Reconsideration and modifying its December 24, 2008 ruling, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated December 24, 2008 of this Court is hereby MODIFIED in that the directive to the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary investigation on petitioner Jericardo S. Mondragon's criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 is DELETED for lack of jurisdiction.The CA explained that its jurisdiction over orders, directives, and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman covered only administrative disciplinary cases. Thus, it cannot review the orders, directives, and decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in criminal or non-administrative cases.[15] It further explained that, in these cases, the proper remedy is for the aggrieved party to file an original action for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Supreme Court on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.[16]
Respondent, in his Comment[17] on this Petition for Review, averred that the promulgation of the CA's Amended Decision has rendered the issue raised in the Petition moot and academic. He avers that since the "flesh and blood of the dispute - whether or not [the] Special Former 7th Division of the Coun of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion when it directed the Office of the Ombudsman to conduct preliminary investigation on petitioner Jericardo S. Mondragon's criminal complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 3019 [-] has already disappeared," the Petition should be dismissed.
Petitioner subsequently filed a Manifestation[18] informing the Court that it is dispensing with the filing of a Reply, considering that the issue has become moot and academic, with the promulgation of the CA's Amended Decision.
In view of the CA's Amended Decision dated July 13, 2009, the main controversy in this Petition has been rendered moot and academic.
An issue becomes moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy, so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value.[19]
Petitioner raises one major issue in its Petition: whether the CA correctly denied its Omnibus Motion to Intervene and to Admit Attached Motion for Reconsideration in proceedings where its (petitioner's) decision is the subject matter of the controversy.
With the Amended Decision, the reason for petitioner's intervention before the CA has ceased to exist.
To recall, the CA, in its December 24, 2008 Decision, had ruled that the administrative charges for violation of R.A. No. 3019 had prescribed because these were filed more than one year after the occurrence of the act or omission complained of.[20] Thus, only the criminal aspect of the complaint would have to be acted upon. However, with the deletion of that directive, there is no issue left for the CA to resolve.
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Petition for Review is DISMISSED for being MOOT AND ACADEMIC. Peralta, J., no part, his spouse having concurred in the assailed Court of Appeals decision; Bersamin, J., designated additional member per Raffle dated 29 July 2009.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, p. 41.
[2] Id. at 48-55.
[3] Id. at 121-124.
[4] Id. at 123.
[5] Id. at 122.
[6] Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with Associates Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; id. at 32-39.
[7] Id. at 38-39.
[8] Id. at 38.
[9] Id. at 37-38.
[10] Id. at 167.
[11] Id. at 138-154.
[12] Id. at 2-28.
[13] Id. at 158-163.
[14] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Fernanda Lampas Peralta, concurring; id. at 165-170.
[15] Id. at 168.
[16] Id. at 169.
[17] Id. at 173-175.
[18] Id. at 179-185.
[19] Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Pascua, 456 Phil. 425, 436 (2003); Garcia v. COMELEC, 328 Phil. 288,292(1996).
[20] Rollo, p. 38.
