G.R. No. 122728 February 13, 1997
Casiano A. Angchangco, Jr., petitioner, vs. The Honorable Ombudsman, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Casiano A. Angchangco, Jr., a former Sheriff IV, was tasked with implementing a writ of execution to satisfy a final labor judgment in favor of workers of Nasipit Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Services Inc. (NIASSI). Following the garnishment of NIASSI’s collections, its president filed a graft complaint against Angchangco with the Office of the Ombudsman. This complaint was recommended for dismissal in 1992. Separately, from June 25 to 28, 1990, several NIASSI workers filed letters-complaints alleging Angchangco illegally deducted 25% from their differential pay. The administrative aspect of these complaints was dismissed by the Supreme Court in 1993 for the complainants’ lack of interest.
However, the criminal aspects of the workers’ complaints remained pending with the Ombudsman for over six years. Despite Angchangco’s retirement in September 1994 and his filing of several motions for early resolution and a motion to dismiss invoking inordinate delay, the Ombudsman failed to resolve the cases. This inaction led to the denial of Angchangco’s request for a clearance necessary to receive his retirement benefits, prompting him to file this petition for mandamus.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman’s inordinate delay of over six years in resolving the criminal complaints against petitioner warrants the dismissal of the cases via a writ of mandamus.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition and ordered the dismissal of the criminal cases. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s failure to resolve the complaints for more than six years constituted a violation of Angchangco’s constitutional right to due process and to a speedy disposition of his cases, as enshrined in Section 16, Article III of the Constitution . The Court applied the doctrine established in Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, where an unexplained delay of three years in concluding a preliminary investigation was deemed a denial of these rights.
While mandamus typically compels the performance of a ministerial duty and not the control of discretion, an exception exists in cases of gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority. The Ombudsman’s protracted inaction, which left Angchangco under a cloud of suspicion and deprived him of his retirement benefits after 42 years of service, constituted such an injustice. The Ombudsman also failed in its constitutional mandate to act promptly on complaints. Consequently, the Court directed the dismissal of the pending Ombudsman cases and ordered the issuance of the requisite clearance in favor of Angchangco.