Jimenez Enterprises v. Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) entered into a contract with Royson and Co., Inc. for the construction of the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) Building (Phase I). Petitioner M.A. Jimenez Enterprises, Inc. (petitioner), whose property was adjacent to the project site, sent letters to Royson and Co., Inc. requesting the construction of a retaining wall due to concerns about erosion. A landslide occurred on February 7, 2000, which petitioner alleged caused damage to its house. Investigations by DPWH-CAR and the City Engineer of Baguio City indicated that the affected area was part of BGHMC property and that petitioner's garage encroached on BGHMC property. Royson and Co., Inc. proceeded with construction, but the retaining wall of the BGHMC Project collapsed on June 8, 2000. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against various DPWH and BGHMC officials and Royson and Co., Inc., alleging violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) due to gross negligence, incompetence, and malicious conduct in the construction of the project. Procedural History: The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, finding no evidence of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Ombudsman also noted that the damage was not on petitioner's property but on BGHMC's property, which petitioner had encroached upon. The motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and mandamus, seeking to nullify the Ombudsman's resolution and order and to direct the Ombudsman to file informations against the respondents. Petitioner argued that construction was undertaken without necessary permits and analysis, the collapse raised a presumption of negligence, and efforts to construct the retaining wall were made only after damage occurred.
Issue(s)
Whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the complaint against the respondents. Whether there is probable cause to charge the respondents with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019; and whether a writ of mandamus should be issued.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Resolution dated February 5, 2002, and Order dated June 27, 2002, of the Ombudsman in OMB Case No. 0-01-0400 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion: The Supreme Court reiterated that the determination of probable cause is a function of the Ombudsman, and the Court will not ordinarily interfere unless there is grave abuse of discretion, defined as a capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the case. The Ombudsman's findings were based on substantial evidence, and the petitioner failed to present specific evidence of manifest partiality or evident bad faith on the part of the respondents. The Court noted that the collapse was attributed to a confluence of factors beyond the respondents' control, including unusually heavy rains, the discovery of a pre-war tunnel, Typhoon Feria, and the inherent possibility of landslides in a sloped construction area. These factors were considered force majeure. On the issue of probable cause for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 and the prayer for a writ of mandamus: The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding that the essential elements of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 were not sufficiently established. The petitioner failed to prove manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court clarified that gross inexcusable negligence requires more than a mere omission of duties; it must be characterized by flagrant, palpable, and willful indifference to consequences. The actions taken by the respondents, such as adopting emergency slope protection, implementing a supplemental agreement for reinforced concrete slope protection, installing soil nails, and hiring a structural design specialist, demonstrated due diligence rather than gross negligence. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of actual damages, which is a required element for "undue injury" under Section 3(e). The Memorandum of the City Engineer indicated that the main structure of the complainant's building was outside the critical slip circle and that a portion of the complainant's garage encroached on BGHMC property, negating the claim of damage to the petitioner's property. The Court held that mandamus is unavailing because it is employed to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. The Ombudsman's decision to dismiss the complaint was an exercise of discretion, and there was no grave abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority that would warrant the issuance of the writ.
Main Doctrine
The determination of probable cause by the Ombudsman is a function that belongs to the Ombudsman and will not be interfered with by the Supreme Court unless there is grave abuse of discretion, which must be shown to be capricious, whimsical, arbitrary, or despotic.