Roque v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Felicidad M. Roque and Prudencio N. Mabanglo, both Schools Division Superintendents of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS), were subjects of an audit conducted by the COA on a P9.36 million allotment. The audit revealed major deficiencies and violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and other regulations. Procedural History: Consequently, affidavits of complaint were filed before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao against Mabanglo on May 7, 1991, and against Roque on May 16, 1991. The Ombudsman found the complaints proper for preliminary investigation on June 11, 1991, docketing them as OMB-MIN-91-0201 and OMB-MIN-91-0203, respectively. Petitioners filed their counter-affidavits. However, no resolution was issued for almost six years. On March 18, 1997, OMB-MIN-91-0201 was resolved, finding probable guilt for violations of Section 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019, leading to the filing of an Information before the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case No. 24229) against Mabanglo. On April 30, 1997, OMB-MIN-91-0203 was resolved, recommending prosecution for violations of Section 3 (e) and (g) of RA 3019, resulting in the filing of two Informations before the Sandiganbayan (Criminal Case Nos. 24105 and 24106) against Roque. The Petition: On August 14, 1997, petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus, alleging that the six-year delay in resolving the complaints and filing cases violated their constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases. They prayed for the dismissal of the Ombudsman cases and the issuance of clearances. A Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) was issued on November 24, 1997. Petitioners later sought to cite respondents in contempt for allegedly violating the TRO by filing an Information.
Issue(s)
Whether there was undue and unjustifiable delay in resolving the complaints against petitioners, violating their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. Whether such undue and unjustifiable delay warrants the dismissal of the complaints. Whether mandamus is the proper remedy to compel the dismissal of the complaints. Whether respondents are liable for contempt for allegedly violating the Temporary Restraining Order.
Ruling
The Petition for Mandamus is GRANTED, and Ombudsman Case Nos. OMB-91-0201 and OMB-91-O203 are DISMISSED. The Petition to cite respondents in contempt is DENIED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of constitutional rights and the dismissal of the complaints: The Constitution mandates the Office of the Ombudsman to act promptly on complaints against public officials. The delay of almost six years in resolving the complaints against petitioners Mabanglo and Roque, from the time they were found proper for preliminary investigation until the recommendation to file Informations, clearly disregarded this mandate. This inordinate delay violated petitioners' constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against them, as recognized in jurisprudence. The inordinate delay of almost six years in resolving the criminal complaints against petitioners is violative of their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and a speedy disposition of the cases against them. This violation warrants the dismissal of said criminal cases. The Court, in the interest of speedy disposition of cases, directly dismisses the cases, following the precedent set in Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, where a similar delay led to the dismissal of complaints. The contention that the Petition for Mandamus became moot and academic upon the resolution of the complaints and filing of Informations is rejected. Similar to the ruling in Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, an undue delay in the conduct of a preliminary investigation cannot be corrected by the eventual filing of Informations, as time cannot be set back. The dismissal of the cases is the appropriate remedy for the violation of constitutional rights due to such delay. On the violation of constitutional rights and the dismissal of the complaints: The Constitution mandates the Office of the Ombudsman to act promptly on complaints against public officials. The delay of almost six years in resolving the complaints against petitioners Mabanglo and Roque, from the time they were found proper for preliminary investigation until the recommendation to file Informations, clearly disregarded this mandate. This inordinate delay violated petitioners' constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and to a speedy disposition of the cases filed against them, as recognized in jurisprudence. The inordinate delay of almost six years in resolving the criminal complaints against petitioners is violative of their constitutionally guaranteed right to due process and a speedy disposition of the cases against them. This violation warrants the dismissal of said criminal cases. The Court, in the interest of speedy disposition of cases, directly dismisses the cases, following the precedent set in Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, where a similar delay led to the dismissal of complaints. The contention that the Petition for Mandamus became moot and academic upon the resolution of the complaints and filing of Informations is rejected. Similar to the ruling in Tatad v. Sandiganbayan, an undue delay in the conduct of a preliminary investigation cannot be corrected by the eventual filing of Informations, as time cannot be set back. The dismissal of the cases is the appropriate remedy for the violation of constitutional rights due to such delay. On the propriety of Mandamus: While mandamus generally cannot compel a discretionary act, it is available in cases of gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority. The Ombudsman's failure to resolve the complaints for almost six years, despite the constitutional mandate for prompt action, constitutes such an abuse of discretion, denying petitioners their settled right to a speedy disposition of their cases. Therefore, mandamus is a proper remedy to compel action, even if it means dismissal. On the contempt charge: The petition to cite respondents in contempt is denied. The Information against Petitioner Mabanglo was filed on September 25, 1997, which was before the issuance of the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on November 24, 1997. Therefore, the TRO could not have been violated. Furthermore, the Petition for Contempt was filed as an integral part of the Mandamus petition, contrary to the procedural rule requiring it to be docketed and heard separately unless consolidated by the Court.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the Office of the Ombudsman to resolve a complaint pending for an unreasonable period, such as six years, violates the constitutional rights to due process and speedy disposition of cases, warranting the dismissal of the complaint.