FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 224987. March 23, 2022.]
EVELYN T. PANUNCIALMAN, RINO D. SORIA, MARK ANTHONY S. PADAYHAG, AND WENEFREDA CAÑADA, petitioners,vs.OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN REPRESENTED BY CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, GARRY P. ENGGAY, GLORIA P. HERRERA, MERLINDO G. CAHILIG, FLORIDA L. SARIGUMBA, ANGELINA L. CABRERA, HELEN D. LOMIGO AND EMILY E. MUTIA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 23, 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 224987 (Evelyn T. Panuncialman, Rino D. Soria, Mark Anthony S. Padayhag, and Wenefreda Cañada v. Office of the Ombudsman represented by Conchita Carpio-Morales, Garry P. Enggay, Gloria P. Herrera, Merlindo G. Cahilig, Florida L. Sarigumba, Angelina L. Cabrera, Helen D. Lomigo and Emily E. Mutia). — Before the Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 assailing the Resolution 2 approved on January 13, 2016, Joint Order 3 dated April 5, 2016, and Order 4 dated May 18, 2016 of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in OMB-C-C-11-0814-L. The assailed issuances found probable cause against Evelyn T. Panuncialman, Rino D. Soria, Mark Anthony S. Padayhag, and Wenefreda Cañada (collectively, petitioners) for violation of Section 3 (e) 5 of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019 6 and denied their respective motions for reconsideration.
The Antecedents
Sometime in 2008, Aurora E. Cerilles (Governor Cerilles), then governor of Zamboanga del Sur, together with petitioners who are members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, caused the procurement of 40 solar street lights through direct procurement from Willstrong Becker Philippines (Willstrong) of Cebu City. The fund was sourced from the Priority Development Fund of Antonio H. Cerilles (Congressman Cerilles), Representative of the 2nd District of Zamboanga del Sur. 7
On March 11, 2008, Willstrong gave its price quotation. On the same day, the BAC resolved to resort to direct procurement with Willstrong. Subsequently, Governor Cerilles approved the BAC's Resolution. 8
On May 4, 2011, members 9 of the Kapisanan ng mga Kawani Laban sa Inhustisya ng Kapitolyo, Incorporated (complainants), filed a Joint Affidavit of Criminal Complaint against the private individuals and public officers involved in the procurement of the solar street lights for violations of RA 3019, Revised Penal Code, RA 9184, 10 Presidential Decree No. 1445, 11 and Commission on Audit (COA) Circular No. 95-006 among others. 12
On July 5, 2013, complainants filed an Amendatory and Supplemental Joint Affidavit of Criminal Complaint 13 explicitly including Mark Anthony S. Padayhag as respondent, among others, while dropping the complainants and witnesses of the plunder case against Governor Cerilles and Congressman Cerilles from their complaint. 14
Complainants alleged that they had monitored the illegal transactions of the Provincial Capitol of Zamboanga del Sur including the purchase of the solar street lights and that they witnessed and overheard Domingo T. Redelosa IV, Alberto Y. Galicinao, and a representative of Willstrong talk about their "share" from the solar street lights transaction. 15
To bolster their allegation, complainants quoted the COA 2008 Annual Audit Report on the Province of Zamboanga del Sur which stated that: (1) there was no public bidding conducted in the procurement for the solar street lights; (2) that the procurement lacked the necessary supporting documents; and (3) that the check amounting to P14,998,000.00 in payment for the solar street lights was issued in a span of three days from the issuance of the purchase request. 16
In their respective counter-affidavits, petitioners denied that the procurement of the solar street lights was overpriced. They asserted that prior to the procurement, they made inquiries from several suppliers and prepared a project procurement management plan for the BAC's guidance. They further alleged that Willstrong, the exclusive distributor of Guangdong Five Star Solar Energy Co., Ltd., showed interest in the project; that when they found Willstrong's price quotation acceptable, all the members of BAC convened and decided, on the same day, to recommend to Governor Cerilles to proceed with the procurement through direct contracting, an alternative mode of procurement; that convinced of Willstrong's offer as more advantageous to the government, the BAC convened again the following day; and that through Resolution No. 6 (DC)-2008 17 dated March 12, 2008, they recommended the purchase of solar street lights through direct contracting. Finally, they averred that the resort to direct contracting is supported by documents required under RA 9184. 18
The Ombudsman's Ruling
On January 13, 2016, the Ombudsman issued the assailed Resolution finding probable cause to indict the public officials involved in the questionable procurement of the solar street lights with violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. It held that the respondents exhibited gross inexcusable negligence in the performance of their respective duties when they procured the solar street lights thru direct contracting. 19
On various dates, petitioners filed their respective motions for reconsideration, 20 but the Ombudsman denied them in its Joint Order 21 dated April 5, 2016 and Order 22 dated May 18, 2016.
Undeterred, petitioners filed the present petition and prayed, among others, for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. 23
On July 4, 2016, the Court issued a Resolution 24 denying petitioners' prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order. Consequently, the Ombudsman filed an Information 25 against petitioners on July 12, 2016 docketed as Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0416, the accusatory portion of which reads as follows:
That on 11 March 2008, or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in the City of Pagadian, Province of Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above-named accused, AURORA E. CERILLES, being the Provincial Governor of Zamboanga del Sur, and RINO D. SORIA, MARK ANTHONY S. PADAYHAG, WENEFREDA M. CAÑADA, AND EVELYN T. PANUNCIALMAN being members of the Provincial Bids and Awards Committee (BAC), while in the performance of their official functions, committing the crime in relation to office and taking advantage of their respective official position, conniving, confederating and conspiring with one another, acting with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give unwarranted benefits advantage or preference to Willstrong Becker Philippines by causing the procurement from the latter of forty (40) sets of Solar Street Lights in the amount of Fourteen Million Nine Hundred ninety Eight Thousand Pesos (P14,998,000.00) without public bidding required and resorting instead to direct contracting without complying with the conditions therefor, in violation of Republic Act No. 9184, with undue haste, and thereby depriving the Provincial Government the opportunity to secure the best possible price and terms for said street lights, causing undue injury to the Provincial Government in the aforesaid amount.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 26
In their Consolidated Reply 27 dated December 5, 2019, petitioners averred that the Sandiganbayan First Division (Sandiganbayan) had dismissed Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0416; and that the Sandiganbayan had denied reconsideration thereof in its Resolution 28 dated September 11, 2017.
Petitioners then amended their prayer in the instant petition for certiorari to read as follows:
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing premises, the Petitioners pray that the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman's Resolution dated January 13, 2016 and Joint Order dated May 18, 2016 be rendered MOOT AND ACADEMIC, with a caveat that GPPB Resolution No. 30-2007 should not be given a retroactive application prior to its publication, for the guidance of the bench and bar.
Other relief(s) just and equitable are likewise prayed for. 29 (Emphasis supplied.)
The Issues
For the Court's resolution are the: (a) procedural issue of whether the petition has become moot after the Sandiganbayan dismissed the criminal case against petitioners; and (b) substantive issue of whether the Ombudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion in finding probable cause against petitioners for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA 3019.
Our Ruling
The Court takes judicial notice of the proceedings of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0416. 30
In the Resolution 31 dated April 4, 2017, the Sandiganbayan held that the Ombudsman committed an inordinate delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation. It noted that the Ombudsman took four years and six months to complete the preliminary investigation, an inordinate and unreasonable delay. Thus, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the case for violation of the accused's constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases:
WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, accused Cerilles' Motion to Dismiss, dated January 4, 2017, which was adopted by accused Soria, Panuncialman and Canada in their Omnibus Ex-Parte Motion to Adopt Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Defer Preliminary Conference and Pre-trial, dated January 18, 2017, and by accused Padayhag in his Ex Parte Motion Adopting the Motion to Dismiss of Accused Aurora E. Cerilles, dated January 24, 2017, is hereby GRANTED, and the Information in Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0416 is ordered QUASHED. Accordingly, the said case is hereby DISMISSED, for violation of the constitutional right of the accused to a speedy disposition of their cases.
The hold-departure orders issued by this Court against the said accused-movants, by reason of this case, arc hereby LIFTED and SET ASIDE, and the bonds they posted for their provisional liberty are ordered RELEASED, subject to the usual accounting and auditing procedures.
SO ORDERED. 32
Based on the records of the case, the Ombudsman did not assail the denial of their motion for reconsideration; thus rendering the dismissal final and executory.
In view of the foregoing supervening events, the present petition had become moot. An issue is said to have become moot and academic when it ceases to present a justiciable controversy so that a declaration on the issue would be of no practical use or value. 33
Nonetheless, petitioners insist that the Court must rule on the constitutionality of the Ombudsman's retroactive application of Government Procurement Policy Board (GPPB) Resolution No. 30-2007 34 for the guidance of the bench and the bar. 35
Citing GPPB Resolution No. 30-2007, the Ombudsman held that to justify direct contracting, the BAC should have conducted a survey of the industry. Although the BAC conducted a survey in the form of a "canvass," it was limited to suppliers in Zamboanga del Sur and did not include Metro Manila, Cebu, or Davao where the chance of finding suppliers would be higher. It concluded that petitioners were manifestly partial to Willstrong. 36 Petitioners, however, contend that GPPB Resolution No. 30-2007 should not be applied to the direct contracting of the solar street lights from Willstrong because it was published after the questioned procurement activity. 37
Although there are instances when the Court will continue to decide a case that is otherwise moot — namely, when: (1) there is a grave violation of the Constitution; (2) the situation is of exceptional character and paramount public interest is involved; (3) the constitutional issue raised requires a formulation of controlling principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and (4) the case is capable of repetition yet evading review 38 — still, the Court finds that it is unwarranted in the case.
The correctness of the retroactive application of GPPB Resolution No. 30-2007 mainly affects the procurement activities made during the interim period, that is, after the subject resolution was approved but prior to its publication. The interests of the public officers who engaged in a procurement activity through direct contracting during the interim period do not constitute paramount public interest which would require the Court to intervene despite the mootness of the petition. 39 Further, petitioners do not allege that the retroactive application of the GPPB resolution is a constitutional issue, a grave violation of Constitution, or that the case is capable of repetition yet evading review.
Under the circumstances, resolving the issue of the Ombudsman's retroactive application of GPPB Resolution No. 30-2007 is manifestly pointless. With the Sandiganbayan's dismissal of the criminal case, the issue of whether the Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in its retroactive application of GPPB Resolution No. 30-2007 will serve no useful purpose other than as a theoretical exercise. In other words, the dismissal of Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-0416 rendered this petition devoid of any practical value.
The case of Go v. Sandiganbayan40 is instructive, to wit:
With the dismissal of the criminal cases by the Sandiganbayan, the Court's opinion on whether the same should proceed and whether the Sandiganbayan should try the cases will serve no useful purpose other than as a theoretical exercise. Be it noted that the Sandiganbayan resolution is immediately final and executory since the rule against double jeopardy does not brook any appeal from an order dismissing the case against a criminal defendant.
Courts of justice constituted to pass upon substantial rights will not consider questions where no actual interests are involved. Courts generally decline jurisdiction over moot cases because there is no substantial relief to which petitioner will be entitled and which WILL anyway be negated by the dismissal of the petition. This Court, therefore, ought to abstain from expressing its opinion in the case at bar where no legal relief is needed or called for.41 (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied.)
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that a petition for certiorari is available only when "there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." The instant petition does not allege circumstances and issues of transcendental importance to the public requiring their prompt and definite resolution of the Court and the brushing aside of technicalities of procedure 42 such as the hierarchy of courts or the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Neither did petitioners allege that the Ombudsman has usurped the legislative authority of Congress. 43
In sum, the reliefs initially sought by petitioners from the Court have been rendered superfluous by the Sandiganbayan's dismissal of the concomitant criminal case. They have no more interest in the present petition as it is now merely hypothetical. Thus, the dismissal of this petition for being moot is in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED as it had become moot.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-38.
2.Id. at 42-55. Approved by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales.
3.Id. at 82-88.
4.Id. at 104-108.
5. SECTION 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
6. Entitled "Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act," approved on August 17, 1960.
7.Rollo, p. 43.
8.Id. at 179-180.
9. Garry P. Enggay, Angelina L. Cabrera, Gloria P. Herrera, Emily E. Mutia, Juvy L. Cayanong, Merlindo G. Cahilig, Engracita E. Radaza, Edwin B. Legaspi, and Florida L. Sarigumba.
10. Government Procurement Reform Act, approved on January 10, 2003.
11. Government Auditing Code of the Philippines, approved on June 11, 1978.
12.Rollo, p. 124.
13.Id. at 122-134.
14.Id. at 123.
15.Id. at 43-44.
16.Id. at 44.
17.Id. at 117-118.
18.Id. at 47-48.
19.Id. at 49.
20.Id. at 56-64, 65-72, and 73-80.
21.Id. at 82-88.
22.Id. at 104-108.
23.Id. at 37.
24.Id. at 165.
25.Id. at 199-201.
26.Id. at 199-200.
27.Id. at 269-277.
28.Id. at 279-284.
29.Id. at 276.
30. See Tiburcio v. P.H.H.C., 106 Phil. 477, 484 (1959). Citing former Chief Justice Moran, this Court noted the instances wherein judicial notice of other proceedings is warranted:
"In some instance, courts have taken judicial notice of proceedings in other causes, because of their close connection with the matter in controversy. x x x Courts have also taken judicial notice of previous cases to determine whether or not the case pending is a moot one or whether or not a previous ruling is applicable in the case under consideration." (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied.)
31. Available on <https://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/RESOLUTIONS/2017/D_Crim_SB-16-CRM-0416_People%20vs%20Cerilles,%20et%20al_04_04_2017.pdf> (last accessed on March 18, 2022).
32.Id.
33.Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank v. Tuazon, Jr., 469 Phil. 79, 85-86 (2004).
34. Entitle "Approving and Adopting the Local Government Procurement Manual," approved on November 29, 2007.
35.Rollo, pp. 269-270.
36.Id. at 51.
37.Id. at 13-15.
38.IBP Pangasinan Legal Aid v. Department of Justice, 814 Phil. 440, 454 (2017).
39. In Moldex Realty, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, 552 Phil. 281, 289 (2007), the Court held that the application of the Resolutions of the Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council mainly affects the proprietary interests of the parties involved and can hardly be characterized as overriding to the general well-being of the people.
40. 559 Phil. 338 (2007).
41.Id. at 347.
42.Moldex Realty, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, supra note 39 at 289.
43. See Kilusang Mayo Uno v. Director General, NEDA, 521 Phil. 732 (2006).