University of the Philippines College of Law

CPE, 1-D

Topic
Case No. Case No. / Date
Case Name CASE NAME
Ponente NAME, j.

DOCTRINE

● The Right to a Speedy Disposition of Cases

○ Deemed violated when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive
delays
● Factors to consider in the determination of whether that right as been violated:
○ length of the delay
○ reasons for the delay
○ aggrieved party’s assertion or failure to assert such right,
○ prejudice caused by the delay
● The Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman
○ requires that the hearing officer is given a definite period of “not later than thirty (30) days” to
resolve the case after the formal investigation shall have been concluded.

RELEVANT FACTS

● On May 9, 2000, the Fact-Finding and Intelligence Bureau (FFIB), Office of the Ombudsman filed with
the Administrative Adjudication Bureau complaints charging petitioners with administrative and
criminal offenses, i.e. for violation of Sec. 4(a) of RA 6713 (The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees, Sec. 22(a)(c)(i)(k)(t) of EO 292, for dishonesty and grave misconduct,
for gross neglect of duty, inefficiency, incompetence in the performance of official duties and non-
compliance with RA 7718, and for violation of Sec. 3(b), (c) and (e) of RA 3019, in connection with the
bidding of the Land Titling Computerization Project of the LRA.
● Finding sufficient basis to proceed with the investigation, respondent required petitioners to submit
their counter-affidavits and controverting evidence.

● Petitioner vehemently denied the charges and formally offered their evidence on January 29, 2002.

● On April 17. 2002, complainant FFIB filed its Comment thereon

● Petitioners waited for respondent’s resolution on the parties’ respective formal offers of evidence, but
there was none.

● They then filed a Motion to Set Date for the Simultaneous Filing of Memorandum by Each Party.

● Respondent did not act on petitioner’s motion

 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

● On December 12, 2002, Edilberto Feliciano, one of the petitioners, filed a Motion for Early Resolution
expressing alarm over the “inaction of the Office of the Ombudsman” and praying that the cases be
resolved immediately considering that all evidences have been formally offered.

● Respondent still failed to resolve the case.

● Six (6) years from the filing, and more than four (4) years after the formal submission of evidence,
petitioners filed a motion to dismiss all the cases against them, citing violation of right to due process
and speedy disposition of cases.

● Complainant FFIB, despite notice, did not object. Yet, cases remain unsolved.

● Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus praying that the Office of the Ombudsman (respondent) be
ordered to dismiss the administrative and criminal cases against them.

● Respondent argued that (1) it did not violate the Constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases;
(2) petitioners cannot resort to mandamus because dismissing the admin and crim cases involves
respondent’s exercise of discretion; (3) it did not act with grave abuse of discretion for failing to
resolve the cases because the ‘prosecutors assigned are merely exercising extreme care in verifying,
evaluating, and assessing the charges’; (4) the delay in the ongoing review is not vexatious, capricious
or oppressive.

ISSUE

● W/N the petition for mandamus is an appropriate remedy

● W/N respondent violated petitioner’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the petition for YES
mandamus is an appropriate
remedy 1. Ordinarily, a petition for a writ of mandamus is proper to compel the
public official concerned to perform a ministerial act which the law
specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station.
However, it is inaccurate to say that the writ will never issue to control
the public official’s discretion.

2. If the questioned act was done with grave abuse of discretion, manifest
injustice or palpable excess of authority, the writ will be issued to control
the exercise of such discretion. Likewise, mandamus is a proper recourse
for citizens who seek to enforce a public right and to compel the
performance of a public duty, most especially when mandated by the
Constitution.

3. The Court held that respondent acted with grave abuse of discretion
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by failing to resolve the

administrative and criminal cases against petitioners for a period of almost
eight (8) years from the filing of their complaints-affidavits.
W/N respondent violated YES
petitioner’s constitutional
right to a speedy disposition 1. Right to a speedy disposition of cases is deemed violated when the
of their cases proceeding are attended by vexation, capricious, and oppressive delays.

2. The doctrinal rule is that in the determination of whether that right has
been violated, the factors that may be considered and balanced are:
a. length of the delay
b. reasons for the delay
c. aggrieved party’s assertion or failure to assert such right,
d. prejudice caused by the delay

3. Respondent was Constitutionally created to protect the people which

includes promptly acting on complaints to promote efficient service by the
Government
a. Sections 15 and 16 of RA 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989)
bestowed upon respondent broad and tremendous powers and
functions generally categorized as follows: investigatory power,
prosecutor power, disciplinary power, contempt power, public
assistance functions, authority to inquire and obtain information, and
function to adopt, institute and implement preventive measures

b. Constitution enjoins respondent to ACT PROMPTY on any complaint

against any public officer or employee, it has concomitant duty to
SPEEDILY RESOLVE the same.

c. Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman requires that the

hearing officer is given a definite period of not later than 30 days to
resolve the case after the formal investigation shall have been
concluded.

d. …does not only violate petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of their

cases, but is also opposed to its role as the vanguard in the promotion
of efficient service by the government to the people and in ensuring
accountability in public office.

4. Adjudication of cases must not only be done in an orderly manner, but

also be promptly decided to better serve the ends of justice.

5. Respondents belated excuse is not only unreasonable but also an

afterthought.

RULING
 University of the Philippines College of Law
CPE, 1-D

WHEREFORE, Administrative and criminal cases filed againt petitioners are DISMISSED. Respondent
acted with grave abuse of discretion and also violated the Constitutional right to a speedy disposition of
cases.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES