GR 201643; (March, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 201643 , March 12, 2014
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, vs. JOSE T. CAPULONG, Respondent.
FACTS
The case originated from a Complaint-Affidavit filed before the Office of the Ombudsman against respondent Jose T. Capulong, a Customs Operation Officer V of the Bureau of Customs. The charges were for violation of Republic Act No. 6713 (non-filing of Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth or SALNs for certain years and non-disclosure of his wife’s business interests in his SALNs), Perjury, and administrative offenses of serious dishonesty and grave misconduct. In his defense, Capulong asserted he had filed his SALNs and was unaware of his wife’s incorporator status in the cited corporations. The Ombudsman issued an order placing Capulong under preventive suspension without pay. Capulong filed an Urgent Motion to lift the suspension, contending his stay in office would not prejudice the case. Subsequently, Capulong filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) seeking to nullify the preventive suspension order. While the petition was pending, the Ombudsman issued an order lifting the preventive suspension. The Ombudsman then argued before the CA that the petition was rendered moot and academic by the lifting. The CA proceeded to rule on the merits, granting Capulong’s petition and dismissing the criminal charge. The CA held that the offense of non-filing of SALNs had prescribed under Act No. 3326 and that the complaint failed to allege deliberate non-disclosure to constitute gross misconduct. The Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over the subject matter and could grant reliefs, primary or incidental, after the Ombudsman had lifted the order of preventive suspension.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the petition has no merit, thereby affirming the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the subsequent lifting of the preventive suspension order did not render the petition moot and academic. The courts retain the authority to review the validity of such an order to determine if there was grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Although the primary relief (lifting the suspension) had been granted, Capulong’s prayer for “other reliefs just and equitable under the premises” allowed the CA to grant incidental reliefs based on the allegations and proof. The Court found that the CA correctly exercised its adjudicatory power. Furthermore, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s finding that the Ombudsman gravely abused its discretion in issuing the preventive suspension order. The requisites under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 were not satisfied, as the evidence did not sufficiently establish a strong case of guilt, particularly since the charge for non-filing of SALNs had prescribed and the complaint failed to allege deliberate intent in the non-disclosure of business interests.