EN BANC
[G.R. Nos. 217126-27. April 14, 2015.]
HON. CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES, IN HER CAPACITY AS
OMBUDSMAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS [6TH
DIVISION] AND JEJOMAR ERWIN S. BINAY, JR., respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated
APRIL 14, 2015, which reads as follows:
"G.R. Nos. 217126-27 (Hon. Conchita Carpio Morales, in her capacity
as Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals [6th Division] and Jejomar Erwin S.
Binay, Jr.). — The Court Resolved to
(a) NOTE the Entry of Appearance dated April 13, 2015 filed by
the Yorac-Sarmiento Arroyo Chua-Coronel and Reyes Law Firm, Unit
3103-A West Tower, Philippine Stock Exchange Centre, Exchange Road,
Ortigas Center, Pasig City 1605; entering its appearance as collaborating
counsel for private respondent Jejomar Erwin S. Binay, Jr., but DENY its
request that it be furnished with copies of all orders, motions,
manifestations and other pleadings filed in this case as only the lead
counsel is entitled to court processes;
(b) NOTE the Position Paper (for the Oral Arguments on April 14,
2015) dated April 13, 2015 filed by counsel for private respondent Binay
pursuant to the Advisory;
(c) NOTE the Compliance (Table of Authorities for the Oral
Arguments on April 14, 2015) dated April 13, 2015 filed by counsel for
private respondent Binay pursuant to the Advisory;
(d) NOTE the Ex-Parte Manifestation dated April 10, 2015 filed by
counsel for private respondent Binay, stating that the latter shall be
represented in the oral arguments by the following:
1. Atty. Claro F. Certeza
2. Atty. Mariano Sarmiento II
3. Atty. Maria Patricia L. Alvarez
4. Atty. Jose Julius R. Castro
5. Atty. Sandra Marie O. Coronel
(e) NOTE the Compliance (Short Paper and Table of Authorities)
dated April 13, 2015 filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) for
the petitioner pursuant to the Advisory; aScITE
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
(f) NOTE the Manifestation and Motion dated April 13, 2015 filed
by the OSG, stating that Acting Solicitor General Florin T. Hilbay,
Assistant Solicitor General Hermes L. Ocampo and Senior State Solicitor
Raymund I. Rigodon will appear as petitioner's representatives in the
oral arguments, and GRANT OSG's prayer it be allowed to present a
short PowerPoint presentation;
(g) GRANT the Motion for Leave (to File Supplemental Petition for
Certiorari) dated April 10, 2015 filed by the OSG for the petitioner;
(h) NOTE the aforesaid Supplemental Petition for Certiorari dated
April 10, 2015; and
(i) APPROVE, by a vote of 7-5, the request of Atty. Theodore O.
Te, Assistant Court Administrator and Chief, Public Information Office,
for permission to livestream the audio component of the oral arguments
in this case, subject to previous guidelines set by the Court.
DETACa
At the hearing of this case this afternoon, the following counsel
appeared:
Counsel for Petitioner
Office of the Solicitor General
Acting Solicitor General Florin T. Hilbay
Assistant Solicitor General Hermes L. Ocampo
Senior State Solicitor Raymund I. Rigodon
Counsel for Private Respondent Binay
Atty. Claro F. Certeza
Atty. Mariano Sarmiento II
Atty. Maria Patricia L. Alvarez
Atty. Jose Julius R. Castro
Atty. Sandra Marie Olaso-Coronel
The critical issues for the purpose of the oral arguments have been
determined as follows in the Advisory:
MAIN ISSUE
Whether or not this Court should issue a temporary restraining order
(TRO) to prohibit the Court of Appeals from conducting further
proceedings in the consolidated cases and to stop the implementation
of the two assailed resolutions.
I.
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman's Petition for certiorari
under Rule 65 raises errors of judgments and not errors of jurisdiction
contrary to the requirements of the Rules of Court.
II.
Whether or not Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act defeats the power of
the Supreme Court and/or the Court of Appeals to exercise original
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition seeking to
question acts of the Ombudsman.
III.
Whether or not Section 14 prohibits the determination by the Supreme
Court and/or the Court of Appeals, in the exercise of its original
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari and prohibition, of grave abuse
of discretion on the part of the Office of the Ombudsman relating to its
issuance of a preventive suspension order, including its appreciation of
(1) the strength of the evidence; (2) the length or period of suspension;
and (3) the applicability of certain defenses.
ATICcS
IV.
Whether or not Section 14 completely removes from the Supreme
Court and/or the Court of Appeals the power to issue ancillary injunctive
writs in relation to the Office of the Ombudsman's conduct of an
investigation.
V.
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman's determination that the
preventive suspension of a respondent in an administrative disciplinary
case is "timely, proper and necessary" a finding of fact, or of law, or a
mixture of both.
Further, whether or not such a finding is conclusive on the courts, such
that a contrary view from the courts will only "delay and interfere" with
the ongoing investigation.
VI.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals should be allowed to first address,
in a Rule 65 proceeding, all questions raised over the Office of the
Ombudsman's issuance of a preventive suspension order in view of the
rulings in the cases of Fabian v. Desierto; 1 Ombudsman v. Capulong; 2
and Dagan v. Court of Appeals. 3
VII.
Whether or not the Office of the Ombudsman's petition for certiorari
and prohibition is the plain, speedy and adequate remedy to assail the
Court of Appeal's Resolution in the Petition for Contempt.
In accordance with the same Advisory, the oral arguments commenced
with the interpellation by the Members of the Court. Hon. Conchita Carpio
Morales, in her capacity as Ombudsman, was also interpellated by the
Members of the Court on issues that the Court believes need to be answered
by the Ombudsman herself.
For lack of material time, Chief Justice Sereno announced, in open court,
that the continuation of the hearing of this case is SET on April 21, 2015,
Tuesday, at 2:00 P.M., same venue." Leonardo-De Castro, J., on official
business. Peralta, J., no part. Villarama, Jr., J., on official leave. (adv1) TIADCc
Very truly yours,
ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) FELIPA B. ANAMA
Deputy Clerk of Court En Banc
Footnotes
1. G.R. No. 12942, September 16, 1999, 356 SCRA 787, J. Regalado, En Banc.
2. G.R. No. 201643, March 12, 2014, 719 SCRA 209, J. Reyes, Third Division.
3. G.R. No. 184083, November 19, 2013, 709 SCRA 681, J. Perez, En Banc.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
