Morales v. Court of Appeals [6th Division]

 

EN BANC

[G.R. Nos. 217126-27. April 14, 2015.]

HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS OMBUDSMAN, petitioner,vs. COURT OF APPEALS [6TH DIVISION] AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR., respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution datedAPRIL 14, 2015, which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 217126-27 (Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity as Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals [6th Division] and Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr.). — The Court Resolved to

(a) NOTE the Entry of Appearance dated April 13, 2015 filed by the Yorac-Sarmiento Arroyo Chua-Coronel and Reyes Law Firm, Unit 3103-A West Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Centre, Exchange Road, Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605; entering its appearance as collaborating counsel for private respondent Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., but DENY its request that it be furnished with copies of all orders, motions, manifestations and other pleadings filed in this case as only the lead counsel is entitled to court processes;

(b) NOTE the Position Paper (for the Oral Arguments on April 14, 2015) dated April 13, 2015 filed by counsel for private respondent Binay pursuant to the Advisory;

(c) NOTE the Compliance (Table of Authorities for the Oral Arguments on April 14, 2015) dated April 13, 2015 filed by counsel for private respondent Binay pursuant to the Advisory;

(d) NOTE the Ex-Parte Manifestation dated April 10, 2015 filed by counsel for private respondent Binay, stating that the latter shall be represented in the oral arguments by the following:

1. Atty. Claro F. Certeza

2. Atty. Mariano Sarmiento II

3. Atty. Maria Patricia L. Alvarez

4. Atty. Jose Julius R. Castro

5. Atty. Sandra Marie O. Coronel

(e) NOTE the Compliance (Short Paper and Table of Authorities) dated April 13, 2015 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for the petitioner pursuant to the Advisory; aScITE

(f) NOTE the Manifestation and Motion dated April 13, 2015 filed by the OSG, stating that Acting Solicitor General Florin T. Hilbay, Assistant Solicitor General Hermes L. Ocampo and Senior State Solicitor Raymund I. Rigodon will appear as petitioner's representatives in the oral arguments, and GRANT OSG's prayer it be allowed to present a short PowerPoint presentation;

(g) GRANT the Motion for Leave (to File Supplemental Petition for Certiorari) dated April 10, 2015 filed by the OSG for the petitioner;

(h) NOTE the aforesaid Supplemental Petition for Certiorari dated April 10, 2015; and

(i) APPROVE, by a vote of 7-5, the request of Atty. Theodore O. Te, Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office, for permission to livestream the audio component of the oral arguments in this case, subject to previous guidelines set by the Court. DETACa

At the hearing of this case this afternoon, the following counsel appeared:

Counsel for Petitioner

Acting Solicitor General Florin T. Hilbay

Assistant Solicitor General Hermes L. Ocampo

Senior State Solicitor Raymund I. Rigodon

Counsel for Private Respondent Binay

Atty. Claro F. Certeza

Atty. Mariano Sarmiento II

Atty. Maria Patricia L. Alvarez

Atty. Jose Julius R. Castro

Atty. Sandra Marie Olaso-Coronel

The critical issues for the purpose of the oral arguments have been determined as follows in the Advisory:

MAIN ISSUE

Whether or not this Court should issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prohibit the Court of Appeals from conducting further proceedings in the consolidated cases and to stop the implementation of the two assailed resolutions.

I.

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman's Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 raises errors of judgments and not errors of jurisdiction contrary to the requirements of the Rules of Court.

II.

Whether or not Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act defeats the power of the Supreme Court and/or the Court of Appeals to exercise original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition seeking to question acts of the Ombudsman.

III.

Whether or not Section 14 prohibits the determination by the Supreme Court and/or the Court of Appeals, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition, of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman relating to its issuance of a preventive suspension order, including its appreciation of (1) the strength of the evidence; (2) the length or period of suspension; and (3) the applicability of certain defenses. ATICcS

IV.

Whether or not Section 14 completely removes from the Supreme Court and/or the Court of Appeals the power to issue ancillary injunctive writs in relation to the Office of the Ombudsman's conduct of an investigation.

V.

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman's determination that the preventive suspension of a respondent in an administrative disciplinary case is "timely, proper and necessary" a finding of fact, or of law, or a mixture of both.

Further, whether or not such a finding is conclusive on the courts, such that a contrary view from the courts will only "delay and interfere" with the ongoing investigation.

VI.

Whether or not the Court of Appeals should be allowed to first address, in a Rule 65 proceeding, all questions raised over the Office of the Ombudsman's issuance of a preventive suspension order in view of the rulings in the cases of Fabian v. Desierto; 1Ombudsman v. Capulong; 2 and Dagan v. Court of Appeals.3

VII.

Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman's petition for certiorari and prohibition is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy to assail the Court of Appeal's Resolution in the Petition for Contempt.

In accordance with the same Advisory, the oral arguments commenced with the interpellation by the Members of the Court. Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity as Ombudsman, was also interpellated by the Members of the Court on issues that the Court believes need to be answered by the Ombudsman herself.

For lack of material time, Chief Justice Sereno announced, in open court, that the continuation of the hearing of this case is SET on April 21, 2015, Tuesday, at 2:00 P.M., same venue." Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official business. Peralta, J., no part. Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave. (adv1) TIADCc

Very truly yours,

 

ENRIQUETA E. VIDALClerk of Court

By:

 

(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMADeputy Clerk of Court En Banc

Footnotes

1. G.R. No. 12942, September 16, 1999, 356 SCRA 787, J. Regalado, En Banc.

2. G.R. No. 201643, March 12, 2014, 719 SCRA 209, J. Reyes, Third Division.

3. G.R. No. 184083, November 19, 2013, 709 SCRA 681, J. Perez, En Banc.