FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 230679, February 10, 2021
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN AND THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, Petitioners, v. REXLON T. GATCHALIAN, Respondent.
G.R. NOS. 232228-30
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. REXLON T. GATCHALIAN, RENCHI MAY M. PADAYAO AND EDUARDO Y. CARREON, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
ZALAMEDA, J.:
Before the Court are two consolidated Petitions which stemmed from the tragic fire on 13 May 2015 inside the premises of Kentex Manufacturing Corporation (Kentex) in Valenzuela City, which led to the death of seventy-four individuals and injury of several others.
In G.R. No. 230679, petitioners Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) assail the Decision1 arid Resolution2 dated 28 November 2016 and 20 March 2017, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR SP No. 144428,3 dismissing the administrative cases for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty against Mayor Rexlon T. Gatchalian (Mayor Gatchalian). The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
On the other hand, in G.R. Nos. 232228-30, the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Special Prosecutor, challenges the dismissal of the criminal cases docketed as SB-16-CRM-0802,5 SB-16- CRM-0803,6 and SB-16-CRM, 0804,7 against respondents Mayor Gatchalian, Atty. Renchi May Padayao (Atty. Padayao) and Eduardo Y. Carreon (Carreon), by the Sandiganbayan in its Joint Resolution8 dated 13 December 2016 and Resolution9 dated 8 June 2017. The dispositive portion of the Joint Resolution dated 13 December 2016 reads:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, this Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE that portion of the Ombudsman's Joint Resolution involving OMB-P-A-15-0581 promulgated on 11 February 2016 in that Mayor Rexlon T. Gatchalian is found NOT ADMINISTRATIVELY LIABLE for GRAVE MISCONDUCT and/or GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY.
SO ORDERED."4chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds that no probable cause exists for the issuance of warrants of arrest against accused Rex T. Gatchalian, Renchi May Padayao, and Eduardo Carreon in [C]riminal [C]ases SB-16-CRM-0802, SB-16-CRM-0803, and SB-16- CRM-0804, and accordingly dismisses the instant cases.
SO ORDERED."10chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
"WHEREFORE, premises considered -Instead of filing a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (Rules) to assail the said Joint Resolution, Mayor Gatchalian filed on 03 March 2016 a Petition for Certiorari (with urgent prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a writ of preliminary injunction)22 under Rule 65, before the CA, insisting the lack of a plain, adequate and speedy remedy available to him. It was docketed as CA-GR SP No. 144428.
x x x
3. For issuing a Business Permit to Kentex Manufacturing in 2015 despite its delinquent status, respondents REXLON T. GATCHALIAN, RENCHIE MAY M. PADAYAO, EDUARDO Y. CARREON and ONG KING GUAN a.ka. TERENCE KING ONG are indicted for violation of Section 3 (e) of RA No. 3019. Let the corresponding Information be FILED before the proper court;
4. For issuing a Business Permit to Kentex Manufacturing in 2014 despite not being qualified or entitled thereto, respondents RJEXLON T. GATCHALIAN, RENCHIE MAY M. PADAYAO, [and] EDUARDO Y. CARREON are indicted for violation of Section 3(j) of RA 3019. Let the corresponding Information be FILED before the proper court;
5. For failure to perform their official duties of enforcing the precautionary measures under the Fire Code, respondents REXLON T. GATCHALIAN, RENCHIE MAY M. PADAYAO, EDUARDO Y. CARREON, MEL JOSE P. LAGAN, EDGROVER OCULAM, ROLANDO S. AVENDAN and ONG KING GUAN a.k.a. TERENCE KING ONG are indicted for Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicides and Multiple Physical Injuries under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. Let the corresponding Information be FILED before the proper court;
6. There being substantial evidence, respondents REXLON T. GATCHALIAN, RENCHIE MAY M. PADAYAO, EDUARDO Y. CARREON x x x are found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty and are meted the penalty of DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE with the same accessory penalties of forfeiture of benefits and privileges and perpetual disqualification to hold office.
xxx
SO ORDERED."21chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Fifteenth Division of the CA is not without basis in acting on the petition of Mayor Gatchalian. In the decision in Carpio-Morales v. Binay, Jr., this Court declared the second paragraph of Section 14 of R.A. No. 6770 UNCONSTITUTIONAL, while the policy against the issuance of provisional injunctive writs by courts other than the Supreme Court to enjoin an investigation conducted by the Office of the Ombudsman under the first paragraph of the said provision was DECLARED ineffective until the Court adopts the same as part of the rules of procedure through an administrative circular duly issued therefor.This Court further discussed that the determination on whether there was error on the part of the Respondent associate justices of the CA in issuing the TRO or whether the CA justices can now enjoin all decisions of the OMB would have to be squarely addressed by Us the moment the issue is raised before it in a proper judicial proceeding.
Although the case of Erwin Binay, Jr. pertains to a preventive suspension, the pronouncement therein may arguably apply to any other OMB case since this Court did not make any distinction. The doctrine laid down in the case is that the CA has the authority to issue TRO and injunctive writs in the exercise of its certiorari jurisdiction conferred to it under Section 9 (1), Chapter I of Batas Pambansa 129, as amended.
The Court agrees with the CA that the Morales decision should be read and viewed in its proper context. The Court in Morales held that the CA had subject matter jurisdiction over the petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed therein because what was assailed in the said petition was a preventive suspension order, which was an interlocutory order and thus unappealable, issued by the Ombudsman. Consistent with the rationale of Estrada, the Court held that a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 was proper as R.A. 6770 did not provide for an appeal procedure for interlocutory orders issued by the Ombudsman. The Court also held that . it was correctly filed with the CA because the preventive suspension order was an incident of an administrative case. The Court in Morales was thus applying only what was already well-established in jurisprudence.
It must likewise be pointed out that the Court, in arriving at the decision in Morales, cited and was guided by the case of Office of the Ombudsman v. Capulong. In Capulong, a preventive suspension order issued by the Ombudsman; was questioned through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 filed with the CA. The Court in Capulong held that:
In any event, this Court, ;after the promulgation of the landmark case of Carpio Morales vs. The Court of Appeals,34 came up with the 2017 case of Cobarde-Gamallo v.v. Escandor.35 In the said case, Escandor was found guilty of gross misconduct and ordered dismissed from the service. Aggrieved, he went to the CA via a petition for certiorari with application of an injunctive writ under Rule 65 of the Rules, seeking to set aside, reverse and declare null and void the OMB Order dated 14 June 2007 directing the immediate implementation and execution of the OMB-Visayas Decision dated 21 March 2007 (approved on 14 June 2007) dismissing him from the service. This Court discussed:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary[t]he preventive suspension order is interlocutory in character and not a final order on the merits of the case. The aggrieved party may then seek redress from the courts through a petition for certiorari under Section 1, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court, x x x There being a finding of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Ombudsman, it was certainly imperative for the CA to grant incidental reliefs, as sanctioned by Section 1 of Rule 65.xxx (Emphasis and italics in the original)
Having been superseded by this Court's recent rulings declaring that the OMB's decisions, resolutions and orders are immediately executory pending motion for reconsideration or appeal, it is, therefore, an error on the part of the CA to still rely on those old rulings and make them its bases in granting Escandor's writ of certiorari and enjoining the OMB from implementing its Decision and Order dismissing Escandor from the service. Notably, the assailed CA Decision and Resolution were rendered in 2008 while the ruling in Buencamino was made in 2007 and the amendments to the OMB Rules of Procedure stating that the OMB's decisions, resolutions and I orders are immediately executory pending appeal were already in effect as early as 2003. Yet, the CA still enjoined the implementation of the OMB Decision, and Order on the ground that the same were not yet filial and executory as Escandor has pending motion for reconsideration before the OMB. This is a clear error on the part of the CA, which this Court now corrects.To sum it up, what can be enjoined by the CA via a petition for certiorari are interlocutory orders, and not final orders. In a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules on the other hand, the CA cannot enjoin the Ombudsman from implementing its final decision, although still subject to appeal.
As a final note. The OMB is authorized to promulgate its own rules of procedure by none other than the Constitution, which is fleshed out in Sections 18 and 27 of Republic Act No. (RA) 6770, otherwise known as "The Ombudsman Act of 1989" empowering the OMB to "promulgate its rules of procedure for the effective exercise or performance of its powers, functions, and duties" and to accordingly amend or modify its rules as the interest of justice may require. With that, the CA cannot just stay the execution of decisions rendered by the OMB when its rules categorically and specifically warrant their enforcement, else the OMB's rule-making authority be unduly encroached and the constitutional and statutory provisions providing the same be disregarded. [Emphasis supplied.]
"Nevertheless, the general rule that an appeal and a certiorari are not interchangeable admits exceptions. In Department of Education v. Cuanan, the Court exercised liberality and considered the petition for certiorari filed therein as an appeal:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe remedy of an aggrieved party from a resolution issued by the CSC is to file a petition for review thereof under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court within fifteen days from notice of the resolution. Recourse to a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 renders the petition dismissible for being the wrong remedy. Nonetheless, there are exceptions to this rule, to wit: (a) when public welfare and the advancement of public policy dictates; (b) when the broader interest of justice so requires; (c) when the writs issued are null and void; or (d) when the questioned order amounts to an oppressive exercise of judicial authority. As will be shown forthwith, exception (c) applies to the present case.In the case at bar, the Court finds that the interest of substantial justice warrants the relaxation of the rules and treats Visitacion's petition for certiorari as an appeal. This' is especially true considering that the same was filed within the reglementarv' period to file an appeal. It is noteworthy that in the litany of cases where the Court did not consider certiorari as an appeal, the former remedy was filed beyond the 15-day period to interpose an appeal."
Furthermore, while a motion for reconsideration is a condition precedent to the filing of a petition for certiorari, immediate recourse to the extraordinary remedy of certiorari is warranted where the order is a patent nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction; where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief; where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process; where the proceeding was ex parte or one in which the . petitioner had no opportunity to object These exceptions find application to Cuanan's petition for certiorari in the CA.
At any rate, Cuanan's petition for certiorari before the CA could be treated as a petition for review, the petition having been filed on November 22,. 2004, or thirteen (13) days from receipt on November 9, 2004 of CSC Resolution No. 041147, clearly within the 15-day reglementarv period for the filing of a petition for review. Such move would be in accordance with the liberal spirit pervading the Rules of Court and in the interest of substantial justice, (emphases and underlining supplied)
"Section 6: POST AUDIT' INSPECTION. The Main feature of this program is the post auditing .scheme. This warrants post inspection of the issued regulatory permits and clearances within reasonable time to double check the owner's faithful confirmation to any regulatory measures and requirements. This includes sanitation permits, locational clearance and fire safety inspection permits: This is to ensure that only the compliant and ¦first rate businesses subsists (sic) in the city."47chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryOrdinance No. 62 was uniformly applied in the issuance of all business permits in Valenzuela City, including those issued to Kentex. In addition, DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2011-05 dated 04 January 201141 reiterated that the fire safety inspection must be conducted promptly and should be completed before the end of the year. It likewise required the City/Municipal Fire Marshall to submit a written report notifying the Local Chief Executive of the names of non-compliant establishments expressly stating therein a recommendation not to issue a business permit or revoke existing ones in case of non-compliance.49
"Section 9. x x x
Finally, with the failure of the owner, administrator, occupant or other person responsible for the condition of the building, structure and their premises or facilities to comply within the period specified above, the Chief, BFP may issue order for such abatement. If the owner, administrator or occupant of buildings, structure and their premises or facilities does not abate the same within the period fixed in said order, the building, structure, premises or facilities shall be ordered closed by the Chief, BFP or his/her duly authorized representative notwithstanding any permit clearance or certificate earlier issued by the local authorities."On whether the. Sandiganbayan
The records do not show that the accused acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The accused merely followed the existing memorandum circulars and ordinances on the streamlined procedure for the issuance of business permits. The accused did not state that these issuances dispense with the FSIC requirement. The issuances am as follows: (a) Joint Memorandum Circular No. 1 which aimed to reduce the steps and processing time for business permits, and allowed the Local Government Units to issue "temporary" permits that gave the applicants a period of time to comply with other requirements; (b) Joint DILG-DTI Department Administrative Order No. 10-07 which created a- Business One-Stop Shop (BOSS) to receive and process applications for business registration thru a streamline system; (c) DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2011-05 which reiterated the need for fire safety inspection to be conducted promptly, to be completed before the end of the year, arid requiring the City/Municipal Fire Marshall to submit a written report notifying the Local Chief Executive of the names of non-compliant establishments and recommending the non-issuance or revocation of permits, as the case maybe; (d) BFP Memorandum dated 24 September 2012 which provided for the safety inspection of any structure two (2) or three (3) months in advance before the scheduled renewal of any permits issued by the BPLO, without need for the submission or referral of the application for business permits before such inspection is conducted; and (e) BFP Operational Procedures Manual ("BFP Manual") which provides that only after the business permits are issued that the applications are forwarded to-the. FSES. of the BFP-for scheduling of fire safety inspections, and eventually, the issuaiice of the fire safety inspection certificates.68chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryAnent the third element, it refers to two (2) separate acts that qualify as a violation of Section 3(e) of R A. No. 3019. An accused may be charged with the commission of either or both. Lhe use of the disjunctive term "or" connotes that either act qualifies as a violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.69
Endnotes:
1Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, pp. 72-94; peiined by Associate Justice Leoncia Real-Dimagiba and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Jhosep Y. Lopez of the Fifteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2Id. at 95-98.
3 Entitled "Rexlon T. Gatchalian vs. Hon. Conchita Carpio-Morales, in her capacity as the Ombudsman, Department of Interior and Local Government, and Fact-Finding Investigation Bureau-MOLEO."
4Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, p. 93.
5 For Violation of Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019.
6 For Violation of Section 3 (j) of R.A. Nb. 3019,
7 For Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Homicide & Multiple Physical Injuries
8Rollo, G.R. Nos. 232228-30, pp. 98-114; penned by Associate Justice Michael Frederick L. Musngi, and concurred in by Associate Justices (later SC Justice and now Ombudsman) Samuel R. Martires and Justice Geraldine Faith A. Econg of the^ Second Division, Sandiganbayan, Quezon City.
9Id. at 116-123.
10Rollo, G.R. Nos. 232228-30, p. 114.
11 Created through Mission Order No. 05-02-2015 by the DILG on 14 May 2015.
12Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, pp. 275-308.
13 Composed of various personnel from the Bureau of Fire Protection, the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the National Bureau of Investigation. F/Supt Samuel C. Tadeo of the BFP was designated as the Team Leader.
14 A thermally unstable compound, flammable chemical used as a blowing agent for rubbers and plastics in the production of slippers.
15Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, p. 282.
16Id. at 282-284.
17 Composed of F/CInsp Arnel A. Inandan, F/SInsp Garry D. Lunas, F/SInsp Joel Luis I Tabada, Engr. Ariel T. Miranda, SPOl Anselrao C. Idago III, and FOl Timothy C. Magangat.
18 These are:19 The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
- The maximum travel distance of the occupants of the second floor of Building 3 exceeded (approximately 64 meters) the allowable travel distance (31 meters) allowed by Section 10.2.15.2 para F(1);
- The secondary stairway of Building 3 did not terminate in safe discharge area. The fire exit discharge was obstructed in violation of Section 10.2.5.2 para M and Section 10 2 15 2 para G:
- The door in the main entrance/exit of the second floor was not self closing It was permanently attached to the railing of the stairway in violation of Section 10.2.5.3 para G;
- There were no directional exit signs, exit signs and emergency lighting systems in the buildings in violation of Section 10.2.5.11 and Section 10.2.5.12;
- Secondary stairway of Building 3 and the stairway of the mezzanine floor (office) of Building 2 were not protected or enclosed in violation of Section 10.2,15.3 para A1 and A2;
- The buildings were not equipped with Automatic Detection and Alarm System in violation of Section 10.2.15.3 para CI; ;
- The buildings were not protected with Automatic Fire Suppression System (Sprinkler System) in violation of Section 10.2.15.3 para D1;
- The hazardous storage area was not separated or enclosed from other areas of the building in violation of Section 10.2.6.8 para A, Section 10.2.6.8 para B and Section 10.3 1 2 div 3 para B;
- The above ground tank storage for the diesel was not provided with containment dike section 10.3.4.2.1 para 1;
- The above ground tank storage for the diesel was not properly separated from the boiler machine in violation of Section 10.2.6.8 para A, SectionlO.2.6.8 para B and Section 10.3.1.2 div 3 para B;
- No fire drills and seminars were conducted in violation of Section 10.2.18.6;
- No organized fire brigade in violation of Section 6.0.2.1
- No storage clearance for the hazardous materials in violation of Division 2A Chapter 3 Rule 10; ' F '
- No fire safety clearance for the hotworks operation (welding) in violation of Section 10.4.17.1.
20Rollo (G.R. No. 230679), pp. 99-157.
21Id. at 152-153.
22Id. at 158-185
23Id. at 232.
24Rollo, (G.R. No. 232228-30), pp. 238-247
25Id. at 98-134.
26Id. at 116-123.
27Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, p. 50
28Rollo, G.R. Nos. 232228-30, p. 71.
29Rollo, G.R:No. 230679, pp. 504-505.
30Morales I v. Real-Dimagiba, I.P.I. Nd 16-243-CA-J (Resolution), I.P.I.No. 16-243-CA-J 11 October 2016.
31 Docketed as I.P.I No. 16-243-CA-J.
32 G.R. No. 217126-27, 10 November 2015. The Court, speaking through Justice Perlas-Bemabe, held:
"Under its rule-making authority, the Court has periodically passed various rules of procedure, among others, the current 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. Identifying the appropriate procedural remedies needed for the reasonable exercise of every court's judicial power, the provisional remedies of temporary restraining orders and writs of preliminary injunction were thus provided.
A temporary' restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction both constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action, They are, by nature, ancillary because they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the main action. It is well-settled that the sole object of a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction, whether prohibitory or mandatory, is to preserve the status quo until the merits of the case can be heard. They are usually granted when it is made to appear that there is a substantial controversy between the parties and one of them is committing an act or threatening the immediate commission of an act that will cause irreparable injury or destroy the status quo of the controversy before a full hearing can be had on the merits of the case. In other words, they are preservative remedies for the protection of substantive rights or interests, and, hence, not a cause of action in itself, but merely adjunct to a main suit. In a sense, they are regulatory processes meant to prevent a case from being mooted by the interim acts of the parties. Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure generally governs the provisional remedies of a TRO and a WPI. Apreliminaiy injunction is defined under Section 1, Rule 58, while Section 3 of the same Rule enumerates the grounds for its issuance. Meanwhile, under Section 5 thereof, a TRO may be issued as a precursor to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction under certain procedural parameters.
The power of a court to issue these provisional injunctive reliefs coincides with its inherent power to issue all auxillary writs, processes, and other means necessary to carry its acquired jurisdiction into effect under Section 6, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court[.]
x x x [Emphasis, underscoring and italics in the original[.]
33 G.R. No. 229288, 01 August 2018.
34 G.R. No. 217126-27, 10 November 2015.
35 G.R. No. 184464,21 June 2017.
36Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, p. 182. In his Petition for Certiorari, Mayor Gatchalian alleged:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary"48. Petitioner seeks to enjoin the implementation of the Assailed Resolution by the DILG. In the light of the recent Supreme Court Decision in Carpio Morales vs. Court of Appeals and Binay, the Court of Appeals was given powers to review the Decisions and Resolutions of the Ombudsman, and grant ancillary relief to prevent mootness of the pending case."Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, p. 182.37Crebello v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 232325, 10 April 2019.
38 G.R. No. 194214, 10 January 2018.
39China Banking Corporation v. Cebu Printing and Packaging Corporation, G.R. No. 172880, II August 2010.
40 Joint Memorandum Circular No. 01, series of 2010 provides:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary"4.4. Signatories. All cities and municipalities shall follow the prescribed number of signatories required in processing new business applications, business renewals to five days following the ARTA. However, LGUs are enjoined to require only two (2) signatories, namely, the Mayor and the Treasurer of the BPLO. To avoid delay in the release of permits, alternate signatories (e.g. the Municipal or City Administrator or the BPLO) may be properly deputized by the Mayor.41Fajardo v. Corral, G.R. No. 212641, 05 July .2017.
42Re: Complaint of Aero Engr. Darwin A. Red against Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marqvez and Deputy Court Administrator Thelma C. Bnhia relative to Criminal Case No. 05-236956, A.M. No. 1701-04-SC, 07 February 2017.
43Rodriguez-Angat v. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. 204738, 29 July 2015
44Rollo, G.R. No. 232228-30, pp. 486-491,
45 Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, pp. 309-313.
46 Stands for Simple, Speed and Service
47Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, p. 311.
48Rollo, G.R. No. 232228-30, pp. 498-499.
49 It provides:
"3. In addition to the "Notice To Comply/Notice to Correct Violations" issued to the erring occupancies, the City/Municipal Fire Marshall shall then issue a written report notifying the Local Chief Executive wherein all the names of non-compliant establishments are listed, and expressly stating therein a recommendation not to issue any of the following permits, or revoke existing ones, when applicable — Business or Mayor's Permit, Permit to Operate, Occupancy Permit, PHILHEALTH Accreditation for Hospitals, DOH License to Operate, and other licenses being issued by the local government unit (LGU). The written notice to the I-GU shall be submitted within the first seven (7) calendar following the last month of the quarter when inspection is conducted." (italics in the original)
50Rollo, G.R. No. 23222S-30, pp, 498-499.
51Id. at 506-509.
52 "Section 5 . Responsibility for the Enforcement of this Code, This Code shall be administered and enforced by the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP), under the direct supervision and control of the Chief of the Bureau of Fire Protection, through the hierarchy of organization as provided for in Chapter VI of Republic Act No. 69-75 with the approval of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Locai Government (DILG),. x x x."
53 Referring to Joint Memorandum Circular No, 1, series- of 2010; Joint DILG-DTI Administrative Order No. 10-07; DILG Memorandum Circular No. 2011-05; BFP Memorandum dated 24 September 2012; and BFP Operations Procedure Manual.
54City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr., G.R. No. 118127, 12 April 2005.
55Social Justice Society v, Alienza, Jr. G.R. No. 156052, 13 February 2008.
56 Docketed as Civil Case No. 101-V-15.
57Id.
58Rollo, G.R. No. 230679, pp. 372-393.
59Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. v. Carandang, G.R. No. 206958, 28 November 2017.
60Hao v. People, G.R, No. 183345, 17 September 2014.
61Personal Collection Direct Selling, Inc. v. Carandang, supra at note 59.
62Young v. People, G.R.No. 213910, 03 February 2016.
63 The Information reads:
"That in January 2015 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto, in Valenzuela City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused REXLON TING GATCHALIAN, a high ranking public officer being the Mayor (SG 30), RENCHI MAY MEC1NA PADAYAO, Officer-In-Charge (SG 23) of the Business Permits and Licensing Office (BPLO), and EDUARDO YCO CARREON, Licensing Officer IV (SG 22) of the BPLO, all public officers of the City Government of Valenzuela; while in the performance of their official functions as such; conspiring and confederating with one another and with private individual ONG KING GUAN a.k.a. TERENCE KING ONG, General Manager and Treasurer of Kentex Manufacturing Corporation (Kentex); did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally give Kentex unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence, by issuing a Business Permit to Kentex for the year 2015, despite its delinquent status and without requiring a Fire Safety Inspection Certificate, and for failing to revoke the permit after Kentex failed to submit the requirements within the prescribed period; thereby allowing Koijtex to continue operating with inadequate fire safety measures; resulting in 74 fatalities and multiple physical injuries when a fire took place in the Kentex Compound on 13 May 2015, thereby causing undue injury to the victims in the amount of approximately Three Million Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (P3,700,000.00)."
64 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discbarge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality," evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of officcs or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
65Fuentes v. People, G.R. No. 186421, 17 April 2017.
66Id.
67Tupaz v. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas, G.R. No. 212491-92, 06 March 2019.
68Rollo (G.R. No. 23222830), p. 121.
69Cabrera v. People, G.R. No. 193611-14, 29 July 2019
70Id.
71Soriano v. Ombudsman Marcela, G.R. No. 163178, 30 January 2009.
72Abrogar v. Cosmos Bottling Company, G.R, No. 164749, 15 March 2017.
73 The Information reads:
"That in January 2014 or sometime prior, or subsequent thereto, in Valenzuela City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused REXLON TING GATCHALIAN, a high ranking public officer being the Mayor (SG 30), RENCHI MAY MECINA PADAYAO, Officer-In-Charge (SG 23) of the Business Permits and Licensing Office (BPLO), and EDUARDO YCO CARREON, Licensing Officer IV (SG 22) of the BPLO, all public officers of the City Government of Valenzuela with the duty of approving or granting business permits; taking advantage of their respective official positions and committing the offense in relation to their office; conspiring and confederating with one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly approve or grant or issue a Business Permit in 2014 in favof of Kentex Manufacturing Corporation, an entity that was not qualified or legally entitled to such permit for not possessing the requisite Fire Safety Inspection Certificate.
74 Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In. addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x x x
(j) Knowingly approving or granting-any license, permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
75 The Information reads;
"That on or about, 13 May 2015, in Valenzuela City, Philippines and within the Honorable Court's jurisdiction, accused public officers REXLON TING GATCHALIAN, being the Mayor (SG 30), RENCHI MAY MECINA PADAYAO, Officer-In-Ckarge (SG 23) of the Business Permits and Licensing Office (BPLO), all of the City Government of Valenzueia, and MEL JOSE PAREDES LAGAN, City Fire, Marshall (SG 25), RUG ROVER LIM OCLLAM, Fire Senior Inspector (SG 23), and ROLANDO SANTIAGO AVENDAN, Senior Fire Officer 2 (SG 17), all of the Valenzueia Bureau of Fire Protection, taking advantage of their respective official positions and committing the offense in relation to their office,, conspiring and confederating with one another and with private individual ONG KING GUAN a.k.a. TERENCE KING ONG, General Manager and Treasurer of Kentex Manufacturing Corporation (Kentex), did then and there willfully, unlawfully and. feloniously - in a negligent, careless and imprudent manner - approve, grant,' or issue a Business Permit in favor of Kentex, and fail to impose the prescribed sanctions under Section 9 of the Revised Fire Code of the Philippines of 2008. thus abandoning the necessary precautionary fire safety measures designed to protect lives and property, or to prevent accident to persons and damage to property, and allowing Kentex to continue operating under hazardous conditions, resulting in the deaths of 74 individuals and physical injuries to others in the 13 May 2015 Fire, thereby causing actual damages to the victims in the approximate amount of Three Million Seven Hundred Thousand Pesos (P3,700,000.00) and causing physical Injuries to-others
76Rollo, G.R, No. 230679, pp. 286-288. The. IATF Memorandum states:
"b. Cause and Origin of Fire
After examination of the fire scene, analysis of the fire patterns, and evaluation of witness' account, the team was able to trace the origin of the fire to the ground floor of Building 3, near the front entrance door where the stockpile of sacks containing "SUPERCEI.-L" Blowing Agent were being stored. Said findings is supported by the statement of Steven Chita, Checker and Supervisor of Kentex, who was then present. a.t the time thai the fire started. According to the witness accounts, the molten slags from the welding rod came into coniact with one of the'sacks of "SUPERCELL Blowing Agents" piled almost below or very near the scaffoldings which was then being used for the conduct of the said hotwork. The statements] of Nirio Divino Providol',] Oscar Romero[,] and Wilmer Arenal likewise support the findings of the team as Lo how the fire started and its exact location.
Oscar Romero was the one performing the welding/cutting job, while Wilmer Arenal was assisting Romero atop the scaffolding positioned at the left portion of the roll-up door. Nino Provide, on the other hand, was positioned just below the scaffolding and near the pile of sacks, and thereafter he ran to get the pressurized washer but the same did not work so he shouted at Chua to get a fire extinguisher. At that time, the smoke was already heavy so Pravido decided to drive their truck outside the premises of Kentex. The aforeBicationed incident war- also witnessed by Security Guard Jemerly Callora.
During the sifting process of the ashes/debris at the origin of the fire, the Team was able to recover two remaining parts of the welding rods used during the welding job This bolstered the findings that indeed the fire was triggered by the molten slags/smoldering metal parts during welding/cutting operation by Romero.
xxx [Emphasis, underscoring and italics in the original.]cralawredlibrary