GR 129978; (May, 1999) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129978 May 12, 1999
FELICIDAD M. ROQUE and PRUDENCIO N. MABANGLO, petitioners, vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; HON. OMBUDSMAN ANIANO DESIERTO; and HON. MARGARITO P. GERVACIO, JR., Deputy Ombudsman for Mindanao, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Felicidad M. Roque and Prudencio N. Mabanglo were public school officials charged before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao in 1991 for alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Their cases were docketed as OMB-MIN-91-0201 and OMB-MIN-91-0203. After filing their counter-affidavits, the cases remained unresolved for over six years. In 1997, the Ombudsman finally approved resolutions recommending the filing of criminal Informations against them, which were subsequently filed with the Sandiganbayan.
Petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus before the Supreme Court in August 1997, alleging that the Ombudsman’s failure to resolve the complaints for more than six years violated their constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases. They sought the dismissal of the complaints and the issuance of clearances. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on November 24, 1997. Petitioners later moved to cite respondents in contempt, alleging the filing of the Informations violated the TRO.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Ombudsman’s inordinate delay of over six years in resolving the complaints violated petitioners’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases, warranting the dismissal of said complaints.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the Petition for Mandamus and ordered the dismissal of the criminal cases against petitioners. The Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s failure to act on the complaints for over six years constituted a violation of the constitutional and statutory mandate to act promptly on complaints against public officials. While mandamus generally does not lie to control discretion, it is appropriate where there is gross abuse of discretion, manifest injustice, or palpable excess of authority. The protracted delay here amounted to such an abuse, infringing upon the petitioners’ settled right to a speedy disposition.
The right to a speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the period after a formal complaint is filed in court but encompasses the entire proceedings, including preliminary investigations. The delay of six years was deemed unreasonable and oppressive, prejudicing the petitioners. The Court emphasized that the constitutional right is violated when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. Consequently, the appropriate remedy was the dismissal of the complaints. However, the Court denied the prayer to cite respondents in contempt, finding that the filing of the Informations occurred before the TRO was issued, thus no violation was committed.