G.R. No. 155307 ; June 6, 2011
M.A. JIMENEZ ENTERPRISES, INC., represented by CESAR CALIMLIM and LAILA BALOIS, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN, JESUS P. CAMMAYO, ARTURO SANTOS, MANUEL FACTORA, TEODORO BARROZO, MANUEL ROY, RONALD MANALILI and JOHN ULASSUS, Respondents.

FACTS

On January 20, 1999, the DPWH entered into a contract with Royson and Co., Inc. for the construction of the BGHMC Building (Phase I). During excavation, petitioner M.A. Jimenez Enterprises, Inc., owner of adjacent land, sent letters to Royson expressing concern about erosion and requesting a retaining wall. A provisional slope protection was built. On February 7, 2000, heavy rains triggered a landslide, causing cracks in petitioner’s house. Investigations by DPWH-CAR and the Baguio City Engineer found that the affected part of the lot claimed by petitioner was actually part of the BGH property, that the construction lacked permits, and that cracks were observed on petitioner’s driveway. Royson later built reinforced concrete slope protection, but on June 8, 2000, the retaining wall collapsed. Petitioner filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against the respondents (DPWH and BGHMC officials and Royson representatives) for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , alleging gross negligence and undue injury to its property. Petitioner also filed a separate civil case for damages. Respondents denied liability: Barrozo (City Engineer) stated the project was a national government undertaking; Cammayo (DPWH Asst. Secretary) claimed no direct participation, attributed the collapse to force majeure (a pre-war tunnel), and noted supplemental works were initiated; Factora (BGHMC Chief) denied involvement in the contract. The Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause, finding no evidence of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, and noting the damage was on BGHMC’s property, which petitioner had encroached. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Ombudsman acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for lack of probable cause to charge respondents with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 .

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause. The determination of probable cause is an executive function, and courts will not interfere absent a clear case of arbitrariness. For a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 , the elements of manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence must be present. The Ombudsman found no evidence of these elements. The investigation reports indicated the damaged area was on BGHMC property, not petitioner’s, and the collapse was attributed to heavy rains and a pre-war tunnel—a force majeure event. The respondents’ actions, such as initiating supplemental agreements for slope protection, did not constitute gross negligence. The existence of a separate civil case for damages also indicated that the matter was primarily civil in nature. Thus, the Ombudsman’s dismissal was within its discretionary authority and not attended by grave abuse of discretion.