Republic
of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
VALIENTE C. VILLEGAS Petitioner, - versus - THE HONORABLE VICTOR C.
FERNANDEZ, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR LUZON, CONRADO S. ANCIADO, JR., ROLLY P. DANILA, ANDREI S.
ARABIT and JAIME M. BARON, Respondents. |
G.R.
No. 184851
Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, VILLARAMA, JR.,* PEREZ, SERENO,
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: February 15, 2012 |
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court filed by Valiente C. Villegas (petitioner) assailing the Decision[1] dated August 8, 2008 and Resolution[2] dated October 7, 2008 issued by the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 92771.
On May 6, 2003, the petitioner requested then Mandaluyong City
Mayor Benjamin Abalos, Jr. to allow him to improve the sidewalk and driveway
fronting his house at
After the said improvement works had been completed, the city
government, in March 2004, implemented a road widening project along
After conducting an inspection on
In December 2004, Anciado told the petitioner that the road widening
of
Nevertheless, Anciado proceeded with the re-survey of the site and
found that the perimeter fence of the petitioners house had encroached on the
sidewalk. Thereupon, Anciado filed a complaint with the Mandaluyong City
Council against the petitioner for the encroachment of the sidewalk fronting
the petitioners house.
In turn, the petitioner sought assistance from the Public
Assistance Bureau of the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) in a letter[9]
dated December 14, 2004. Consequently, a conference between the parties was
held before the Ombudsman where it was agreed upon that Anciado would finish
the drainage and other works fronting the house of the petitioner. The
petitioner claimed that Anciado failed to do the works that were agreed upon
during the said conference before the Ombudsman.
Meanwhile, on April 5, 2005, the Mandaluyong City Council sent the
petitioner a letter[10]
inviting him to a hearing scheduled on April 20, 2005 with respect to the said
complaint filed by Anciado.
Thus, on April 18, 2005, the petitioner formally filed a complaint[11]
for neglect of duty against Anciado together with Mandaluyong City Engineering
Office employees Rolly P. Danila and Jaime M. Baron and Mandaluyong City
Building Inspector Andrei S. Arabit.
On June 23, 2005, Anciado and the other respondents in the case
before the Ombudsman filed their Joint Counter Affidavit asserting that they
could not proceed with the concreting of the pavement fronting the house of the
petitioner in view of the pendency of the complaint against the petitioner for
encroachment of the sidewalk.
On July 6, 2005, the Ombudsman issued an Order[12]
dismissing the said complaint filed by the petitioner. The Ombudsman stated
that:
However, as the records of the
case will show, the purported failure to complete the project in question was
totally beyond the control of the respondents, as the complainant has refused
to cooperate in the intended re-survey of his property to determine whether the
improvements he made have encroached upon a portion of the sidewalk. With this,
the respondents can not be expected to pursue the project to its conclusion as
they are hampered by the issue of the encroachment. The administrative charge
of Neglect of Duty therefore is apparently without basis in fact and in law.
x x x x
But be that as it may, it has
also been shown that, even before the filing of the present case on April 18,
2005, the matter of the encroachment by the complainant became the subject of
appropriate proceedings before the City Council of Mandaluyong City, Committee
on Engineering, as of April 5, 2005. Thus, it is incumbent that the said
proceedings be allowed to continue until its conclusion. This is necessary
since the issue in the present case, that is, whether the respondents indeed
committed neglect of duty, becomes part and parcel of the issues in the said
proceedings before the City Council.[13] (citations omitted)
The petitioner sought for a reconsideration[14]
of the July 6, 2005 Order but it was denied by the Ombudsman in its Order[15]
dated October 5, 2005.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus[16]
with the CA alleging that the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in
dismissing the complaint for neglect of duty against Anciado and the other
employees of Mandaluyong City Engineering Office.
On August 8, 2008, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision[17]
dismissing the petition for certiorari
and mandamus filed by the petitioner. In disposing of the said petition, the CA
held that the Ombudsman did not act arbitrarily or without substantial evidence
in administratively exonerating the respondents. In contrast, the CA pointed
out that there is substantial evidence underlying the finding of the Ombudsman
that the respondents are not administratively remiss in leaving uncompleted the
works in front of the property of the petitioner.
With respect to the petitioners prayer for the issuance of a writ
of mandamus, the CA held that:
We hold that mandamus is not proper in this firstly, the petitioner has failed to
prove a ministerial duty on the part of the respondents to pave and fix the
drainage of the sidewalk up to the edge of his fence irrespective of whether it
is on the property line or not, x x x, and secondly,
even assuming that mandamus is available against the respondents, the action should
not be directly filed with Us, but with the RTC which has jurisdiction over the
area in which the dispute arises, under the principle of hierarchy of courts which serves as a general determinant of the
forum for petitions for extraordinary writs. x x x[18]
The petitioner
sought for a reconsideration of the said August 8, 2008 Decision, but it was
denied by the CA in its Resolution[19]
dated October 7, 2008.
Undaunted, the petitioner instituted the instant petition for
review on certiorari before this Court
alleging that the CA erred in dismissing his petition for certiorari and mandamus thereby affirming the July 6, 2005 and
October 5, 2005 Orders of the Ombudsman.
The petition is denied.
A perusal of the allegations, issues and arguments set forth by
the petitioner would readily show that the CA did not commit any reversible
error as to warrant the exercise of the Court's appellate jurisdiction.
Verily,
an analysis of the various arguments raised by the petitioner in his petition
would reveal that the same are geared towards discrediting the factual findings
of the Ombudsman.
It
is a well-settled rule that in a petition for review under Rule 45, only
questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon by this Court.[20] It
is the burden of the party seeking review of a decision of the CA or other
lower tribunals to distinctly set forth in his petition for review, not only
the existence of questions of law fairly and logically arising therefrom, but
also questions substantial enough to merit consideration, or show that there
are special and important reasons warranting the review that he seeks.[21]
Elementary
is the rule that the findings of fact of the Ombudsman are conclusive when
supported by substantial evidence and are accorded due respect and weight,
especially when they are affirmed by the CA. It is only when there is
grave abuse of discretion by the Ombudsman that a review of factual findings
may aptly be made. In reviewing administrative decisions, it is beyond the
province of this Court to weigh the conflicting evidence, determine the
credibility of witnesses, or otherwise substitute its judgment for that of the
administrative agency with respect to the sufficiency of evidence. It is not
the function of this Court to analyze and weigh the parties evidence all over
again except when there is serious ground to believe that a possible
miscarriage of justice would thereby result.[22]
We
find no reason to depart from the foregoing rule.
The
main issue in the administrative complaint for neglect of duty before the
Ombudsman is whether Anciado and the other respondents therein committed
neglect of duty in completing the road widening project along
The crux of the complaint appertains to the
alleged neglect by the respondents in completing the project along Dr.
Fernandez [Avenue].
However, as the records of the case will
show, the purported failure to complete the project in question was totally
beyond the control of the respondents, as the complainant has refused to
cooperate in the intended re-survey of his property to determine whether the
improvements he made have encroached upon a portion of the sidewalk. With this,
the respondents can not be expected to pursue the project to its conclusion as
they are hampered by the issue of the encroachment. The administrative charge
of Neglect of Duty therefore is apparently without basis in fact and in law.
x x x
Needless to state, the matter of refusal of
the complainant to cooperate with the respondents has been shown by several
pieces of evidence, and the complainant can not be allowed to pass the buck
onto the respondents.
But be that as it may, it has also been shown
that, even before the filing of the present case on April 18, 2005, the matter
of the encroachment by the complainant became the subject of appropriate
proceedings before the City Council of Mandaluyong City, Committee on Engineering,
as of April 5, 2008. Thus, it is incumbent that the said proceedings be allowed
to continue until its conclusion. This is necessary since the issue in the
present case, that is, whether the respondents indeed committed neglect of
duty, becomes part and parcel of the issues in the said proceedings before the
City Council.[23]
(citations omitted)
As
aptly found by the Ombudsman, which finding was affirmed by the CA, the delay
in the completion of the drainage and other works on
3.4 However, we could not proceed with the
concreting of the pavement in front of the complainants property since this
will entail removing the temporary drainage pipe underneath that we installed
to prevent flooding in the area. This temporary drainage pipe is connected to
the newly installed big culvert pipe and the old lined canal is located inside
the encroached area of the complainant x x x. Also, this temporary drainage
pipe is to be replaced by a big culvert pipe after the issue on complainants
encroachment shall have been resolved. Thus, if we proceeded with the
concreting of said pavement, the City Government would have only incurred
additional expenses because later on the same would be demolished to give way
to the replacement of said temporary drainage pipe by a big culvert pipe.[25]
All
told, we find that the petitioner failed to
show any grave abuse of discretion or any reversible error on the part of the
Ombudsman in issuing the July 6, 2005 and October 5,
2005 Orders, the same having been subsequently affirmed by the CA, which
would impel this Court to rule otherwise.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
disquisitions, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated August
8, 2008 and Resolution dated October 7, 2008 issued by the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 92771 are AFFIRMED.
SO
ORDERED.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice |
MARIA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I
C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached
in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of
the Courts Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion per Special Order No. 1195 dated February 15, 2012.
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Mario L. Guaria III, with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo, concurring; rollo, pp. 336-346.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Supra note 1.
[18] Rollo,
pp. 344-345.
[19] Supra note 2.
[20] Republic
of the
[21] Sps. Pengson v. Ocampo, Jr., 412 Phil. 860, 865-866 (2001).
[22] Tolentino v. Loyola, G.R. No. 153809,
July 27, 2011.
[23] Rollo, pp. 159-161.
[24]
[25]