Oliveros v. Office of the Ombudsman
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Danilo Oliveros y Ibañez (Oliveros) filed a complaint against Dante M. Quindoza, Engineer Dionisio Samen, and others for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). Oliveros alleged that on July 1, 2003, approximately 20 men led by Engr. Samen arrived at his house and informed his wife that the house would be demolished. When asked for a permit or court order, Engr. Samen allegedly stated they did not need one as they "may sarili silang batas" and that the demolition was ordered by Quindoza, the Bataan Economic Zone administrator. Procedural History: The case was initially lodged with the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Bataan. Respondents argued that Oliveros was guilty of forum shopping, as his wife had filed a similar complaint earlier. They also contended that the Provincial Prosecutor lacked jurisdiction because a prior case involving similar issues had been transmitted to the Office of the Ombudsman due to the Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction. The Provincial Prosecutor recommended filing an information for violation of R.A. No. 3019 and Presidential Decree No. 1096 (National Building Code). However, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon terminated the case to avoid duplicity, without prejudice to the other case. Oliveros moved for reconsideration. On September 12, 2011, the Office of the Ombudsman issued an Order reversing the recommendation and dismissing Oliveros's complaint for lack of probable cause, finding no manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence in the demolition, deeming it in consonance with Section 14(i) of R.A. No. 7916 and noting compliance with due notice. A motion for reconsideration was denied on October 8, 2013. The Petition: Aggrieved, Oliveros filed a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court, assailing the dismissal of his complaint. He argued that the documentary evidence supported a finding of probable cause for violations of R.A. No. 3019 and P.D. No. 1096. He claimed the demolition was illegal for not complying with Section 14(i) of R.A. No. 7916, specifically regarding the authorized person to cause the demolition, and that further delegation of authority was not allowed. He also insisted that P.D. No. 1096 should govern the procedure for demolition in the absence of specific provisions in R.A. No. 7916. He argued that the Office of the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion.
Issue(s)
Whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Presidential Decree No. 1096. Whether Republic Act No. 7916 or Presidential Decree No. 1096 governs the demolition of structures within a Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) territory.
Ruling
The Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Office of the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint: The Court reiterated that the Office of the Ombudsman's finding on the absence of probable cause is binding unless tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The determination of probable cause is an assessment of facts, which falls within the executive function of the Ombudsman. In the absence of grave abuse of discretion, courts should not disturb such findings, upholding the principle of separation of powers. The petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion. The Ombudsman's ruling that respondents did not exhibit manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence was based on the finding that they complied with the due notice requirement under Section 14(i) of Republic Act No. 7916. Furthermore, the law does not require PEZA to obtain a demolition permit, and there was no showing of unjust or inhumane action during the demolition. The Ombudsman has full discretion to file or not file an information, and its decision to dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause must be respected. On the issue of whether Republic Act No. 7916 or Presidential Decree No. 1096 governs the demolition of structures within a PEZA territory: The Court found no inconsistency between Republic Act No. 7916 and Presidential Decree No. 1096, citing PEZA v. Carantes. Section 14(i) of Republic Act No. 7916 explicitly grants the PEZA Director General or their authorized representative the power to summarily demolish structures constructed without the necessary permit within PEZA areas, notwithstanding any contrary law, decree, or issuance. This power is exercised by PEZA, which assumes the enforcement of the National Building Code within its zones by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 1716. Therefore, PEZA's director general and authorized representatives may summarily demolish structures within PEZA-owned or administered areas if constructed without a permit. The Court also clarified that the petitioner's argument that the administrator must be physically present during demolition is unfounded, as Section 14 of Republic Act No. 7916 allows for authorized representatives to carry out the demolition, and the records showed that Engr. Samen acted under the orders of the administrator, who was supervised by the director general.
Main Doctrine
The Office of the Ombudsman's finding on the absence of probable cause to file an information shall be binding, unless it is convincingly shown that this determination was tainted with grave abuse of discretion. Courts should refrain from disturbing the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman in the absence of grave abuse of discretion, in keeping with the principle of separation of powers.