ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 139685. October 9, 2006]

GREENLINE ENVIROTECH PHILIPPINES, INC. vs. HONORABLE ANIANO A. DESIERTO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE OMBUDSMAN, AND HONORABLE MAYOR JOEY P. MARQUEZ

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT. 9, 2006 .

G.R. No. 139685 (Greenline Envirotech Philippines, Inc. vs. Honorable Aniano A. Desierto, In his Capacity as the Ombudsman, and Honorable Mayor Joey P. Marquez)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

In this Petition for Certiorari, ^[1] cralaw petitioner Greenline Envirotech Philippines, Inc. seeks the annulment of the Resolution ^[2] cralaw approved on May 14, 1999 by the Office of the Ombudsman, which dismissed petitioner's complaint against then Mayor Joey P. Marquez of Para�aque City. Also sought to be annulled is the Order ^[3] cralaw of the Office of the Ombudsman approved on July 9, 1999, which denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioner Greenline Envirotech Philippines, Inc. (GEPI) is a corporation engaged in waste collection and disposal. In a complaint-affidavit ^[4] cralaw received by the Office of the Ombudsman on August 19, 1998, petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Para�aque, through then Mayor Joey P. Marquez, entered into a contract with GEPI for the collection of solid waste in District 1 of Para�aque, Metro Manila from October to December 1996, which was subsequently extended until July 1997. It further alleged that it continued to comply with the terms of its contract until December 31, 1997, after which it ceased to render service due to non�payment for said services, a monetary obligation which amounted to PhP 27,500,000.00.

Petitioner claimed that the non-payment was due to then Mayor Marquez's refusal to release the funds. It alleged that it suffered damages and undue injury in the amount of PhP 27,500,000.00, representing the unpaid services for the period of February to December 1997, in violation of Section 3 (e), Republic Act No. 3019.

In the November 28, 1998 Counter-Affidavit, ^[5] cralaw respondent, then Mayor Joey P. Marquez, replied that there had been reports from numerous barangays that petitioner had failed to render the contracted services. He also stated that petitioner could not claim payment for August to December, 1997, since there was no enabling City Council Ordinance/Resolution as mandated under the Local Government Code. Respondent Marquez also claimed that despite the financial difficulties of Para�aque City in 1998, he approved the payment of PhP 2,325,000.00 in favor of petitioner for the month of February 1997, after proper verification of the legitimacy of petitioner's claim had been made.

In its Reply-Affidavit ^[6] cralaw received by the Office of the Ombudsman on February 24, 1999, petitioner refuted respondent Marquez's claim of financial difficulties by saying that respondent Marquez had stated in his August 8, 1998 interview with the Manila Bulletin that the City of Para�aque had posted PhP 742.7 million in revenue collections from the three (3) major income-generating divisions during the first six (6) months of 1998. Petitioner claimed that the evidence presented by respondent Marquez was insufficient to show that Para�aque City was incapable of paying its obligations. It also stated that there had been no complaints with regard to its collection of solid waste during the period covered by the contract of services, and that the Officer-in-Charge of the Solid Waste Management Office signed the Disbursement Vouchers and the Requests for Allocation Allotment, certifying that the petitioner was entitled to the amount claimed. It also claimed to have documents to show that it had made the requisite trips to the barangays concerned. As to the lack of a requisite City Council resolution to effect payment for services rendered, petitioner claimed that respondent Marquez induced petitioner to continue rendering service on the promise that a contract would be passed and approved by the City Council, but none was passed by it.

In its March 25, 1999 Resolution, ^[7] cralaw OMB-0-98-1760, the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman found no sufficient basis to prosecute respondent Marquez for the graft charge. It found that the non-payment of the monetary obligation to the petitioner was based on reasonable grounds, such as financial constraints, petitioner's failure to render service in some barangays, and that no evident bad faith attended respondent Marquez's failure to pay. It concluded that the proper remedy was a collection suit based on the service contract filed with the regular courts. The Office of the Ombudsman thus dismissed the complaint, and the Resolution was approved by then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto on May 14, 1999.

In its June 20, 1999 Motion for Reconsideration, ^[8] cralaw petitioner prayed that the Resolution dismissing the complaint be set aside, and that a new one be issued recommending the filing of an information against then Mayor Marquez for violation of Section 3 (e), RA No. 3019. It stated that it had shown sufficient evidence to refute respondent Marquez's claim of financial difficulties and his evidence supporting the same reason for non-payment. It further alleged that it was entitled to payment for services rendered from August to December 1997 since the absence of a contract was due to respondent Marquez's fault. Lastly, petitioner disputed the finding that it had failed to render service in some barangays, as there was no determination from the Solid Waste Management Office of Para�aque City that it had violated the contract. On the contrary, petitioner averred that there was a certification from that Office that petitioner was entitled to payment. It claimed that its evidence showing compliance with the contract prevailed over the certifications from the concerned barangay officials.

In its July 2, 1999 Order, ^[9] cralaw the Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman found no compelling reason to reverse the Resolution. It reiterated that respondent Marquez's failure to pay petitioner was based on reasonable grounds, and that the parties in this case were bound by a service contract which could be the basis of a collection suit. It also noted that evident bad faith had not been established in this particular case. It recommended that the Resolution dismissing the complaint be affirmed and that the Motion for Reconsideration be denied. This was approved by respondent, then Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto, on July 9, 1999.

In the present petition, petitioner GEPI raises the following sole assignment of error:

THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, IN FINDING THAT THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO HOLD RESPONDENT MARQUEZ LIABLE FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 3 (e), R.A. 3019, ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION. ^[10] cralaw

Petitioner reiterates the arguments presented before the respondent Office of the Ombudsman in its complaint against respondent Marquez. It disagrees with the finding of the Office of the Ombudsman that there were reasonable grounds for the failure of respondent Marquez to pay petitioner; namely, that it was due to financial constraints and that petitioner had failed to render service in some barangays. Petitioner disputes these findings with the same arguments raised before the respondent Office of the Ombudsman, claiming that the act of the respondent Office of the Ombudsman in disregarding these arguments was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. It prays that the Resolution dismissing the complaint against respondent Marquez and the Order denying the Motion for Reconsideration of said Resolution be annulled and set aside, and that the respondent Office of the Ombudsman be directed to file an information against respondent Marquez for violation of Sec. 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019.

The petition has no merit.

Petitioner asks this Court to substitute its judgment for that of the respondent Office of the Ombudsman. Without proof that respondent Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion, the Court will not do so.

In Samson v. Office of the Ombudsman, it was held that:

Grave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment that is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. In other words, the power of discretion is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility. It must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of positive duty and a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or to act at all in contemplation of law. ^[11] cralaw

In the present case, it is petitioner's responsibility to establish that grave abuse of discretion attended the action of the respondent Office of the Ombudsman. This it has failed to do, as the respondent Office of the Ombudsman had shown sufficient justification for its action in dismissing the complaint. It did not act capriciously or whimsically. The respondent Office did its duty as it saw fit, evaluating the arguments presented. It weighed the evidence, and found the evidence of the petitioner wanting. The fact that petitioner did not agree with the findings of the respondent Office of the Ombudsman is not sufficient to establish grave abuse of discretion, nor is there anything to convince the Court to review the findings of an independent office.

Petitioner filed a complaint against respondent Marquez for violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic Act No. 3019. In Olairez v. Desierto, the Court stated:

To establish probable cause against the offender for violation of R.A. No. 3019, Section 3 (e), the following requisites must concur:

(1) The accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former;

(2) The said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties or in relation to his or her public positions;

(3) That he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party;

(4) Such undue injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to such parties; and

(5) That the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. ^[12] cralaw

The respondent Office of the Ombudsman found one of the requisites lacking-that respondent Marquez, having reasonable grounds not to pay the obligation, did not act in evident bad faith. Thus, petitioner failed to convince the Office of the Ombudsman that probable cause exists against respondent Marquez for the charge of graft.

We reiterate the need to accord the Office of the Ombudsman respect as explained in Perez v. Office of the Ombudsman, where the Court held:

We have consistently refrained from interfering with the investigatory and prosecutorial powers of the Ombudsman absent any compelling reason. This policy is based on constitutional, statutory and practical considerations. We are mindful that the Constitution and RA 6770 endowed the Office of the Ombudsman with a wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers, virtually free from legislative, executive or judicial intervention, in order to insulate it from outside pressure and improper influence. Moreover, a preliminary investigation is in effect a realistic judicial appraisal of the merits of the case. Sufficient proof of the guilt of the accused must be adduced so that when the case is tried, the trial court may not be bound, as a matter of law, to order an acquittal. Hence, if the Ombudsman, using professional judgment, finds the case dismissible, the Court shall respect such findings, unless clothed with grave abuse of discretion. Otherwise, the functions of the courts will be grievously hampered by innumerable petitions assailing the dismissal of investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman with regard to complaints filed before it. In much the same way, the courts will be swamped with cases if they will have to review the exercise of discretion on the part of fiscals or prosecuting attorneys each time the latter decide to file an information in court or dismiss a complaint by a private complainant. ^[13] cralaw

As petitioner has failed to establish that respondent Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion, the Court must respect the findings of said Office.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 3-28.

^[2] cralaw Id. at 79-83.

^[3] cralaw Id. at 97-99.

^[4] cralaw Id. at 58-63.

^[5] cralaw Id. at 64-65.

^[6] cralaw Id. at 72-78.

^[7] cralaw Supra note 2.

^[8] cralaw Rollo, pp. 84-96.

^[9] cralaw Supra note 3.

^[10] cralaw Supra note 1, at 10.

^[11] cralaw G.R. No. 117741, September 29, 2004, 439 SCRA 315, 320.

^[12] cralaw G.R. No. 142889, September 21, 2001, 365 SCRA 587, 591.

^[13] cralaw G.R. No. 131445, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 357, 363.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011