CALIM v.

GUERRERO (2007)
G.R. No. 156527
March 5, 2007
Chico-Nazario, J.

PETITION BEFORE THE SC: Petition for Mandamus

PETITIONER: Nemesio Calim
RESPONDENT: The Honorable Jesus F. Guerrero, The Honorable Emilio A. Gonzalez Iii, The
Honorable Adoraction A. Agbada, In Their Respective Capacities As Deputy Ombudsman For Luzon,
Director and Graft Investigation Officer II, The Honorable Roberto J. Acoba, Vice- Mayor, Siniloan,
Laguna, Paul Simon Z. Go, Homer R. Serrano, Felipe A. Em, Eligio R. De Leon, Felipe V. Castro,
Gaudencio C. Salay, Andres V. Quintero, Hector A. Maneja, Sedfrey B. Realeza, all Members of the
Sangguniang Bayan, Siniloan, Laguna,

SUMMARY:
Petitioner operates Eastern Laguna Tours and Tourist Services in Siniloan, Laguna. His business license
and Mayor’s permit were cancelled, so he sent a letter to the private respondents who are the local
officials in the Municipality. However, the private respondents failed to answer his letter. Thus, the
petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Ombudsman against private respondents for violation of
the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act & Section 5(a) of RA 6713. The Ombudsman dismissed the
Graft charges and acknowledge the RA 6713 charge. But instead of filing a charge against them,
Ombudsman merely admonished the respondents. Hence, the petitioner filed for mandamus with the SC
to compel the charge for violation of RA 6713 against the private respondents. W/N the Petition for
Mandamus is proper – NO. SC held that petition for mandamus issues only when the right is founded
on law and it will not issue to against discretionary acts. The petitioner was not able to establish his
entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to
compel the public respondents to file a criminal information against the private respondents. Settled is
the rule that the SC will not interfere with the Ombudsman’s exercise of his investigatory and
prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise. Moreover, the Court
held that appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in administrative disciplinary cases
should be taken to the CA under the provisions of Rule 43. Also, since this is an administrative
disciplinary case, certiorari is the proper remedy and not mandamus.

FACTS:

Before Us is a Petition for Mandamus seeking to compel public respondents to file the appropriate
information against the private respondents for violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713,
otherwise known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Petitioner Calim operates Eastern Laguna Tours and Tourist Services in Siniloan, Laguna. While the
private respondents are Vice-Mayor of Siniloan, Laguna and councilors of the Sangguniang Bayan of
Siniloan, Laguna.

The petitioner was given a mayor’s permit from the municipal government of Siniloan, Laguna, for his
tours and tourist services business. He applied for the registration of his business name, initially
indicating therein as first priority the name, Mabuhay Tours and Tourist Services for his business.
However, he was advised by the office to change the name to Eastern Laguna Tours and Tourist
Services, and thereafter, was issued a Certification of Registration thereon. He informed Municipal
Mayor Guillermo L. Acero, through the Municipal Business License Office, of the fact of change of the
name Mabuhay Tours and Tourist Services to Eastern Laguna Tours and Tourist Services.

Thereafter, he received an invitation from private respondent Vice-Mayor Acoba to appear before the
Sangguniang Bayan of Siniloan, Laguna. It appears that a certain Amador Igos filed a letter-complaint
with the said body alleging the absence of a franchise of public conveyance on the part of Eastern
Laguna Tours and Tourist Services.

The Sangguniang Bayan of Siniloan, Laguna in Kapasiyahan Bilang 81 T-2001, unanimously

recommended the cancellation of the municipal license and permit issued to Eastern Laguna Tours and
Tourist Services. Thus, the operations of his business ceased, thereby, causing him injury, and giving
unwarranted benefits and advantage to his competitor, Van on the Run. The president of Van on the Run
is Felipe Castro, who was a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Siniloan, Laguna, and one of the
private respondents herein.

Finally, Mayor Guillermo Acero cancelled the mayor’s permit to operate Eastern Laguna Tours and
Tourist Services based on the recommendation of the Sangguniang Bayan in Kapasiyahan Bilang 81 T-
2001.

Thus, the Petitioner filed a Complaint-Affidavit with the Office of the Ombudsman for Luzon against
private respondents for violation of the Anti- Graft and Corrupt Practices Act & Section 5(a) of RA
6713.

The petitioner alleged that on 6 September 2001, he sent a letter individually addressed to private
respondents for the purpose of inquiring as to the basis of their recommendation to cancel his business
license and permit to operate Eastern Laguna Tours and Tourist Services. Up to the time of filing the
letter-complaint, or on 18 November 2001, he said, all private respondents had not answered the letter,
in gross violation of Section 5, RA No. 6713.

Private respondents argued that the Complaint against them be dismissed for utter lack of merit, they
maintained that their action taken as members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Siniloan, Laguna, in
recommending the cancellation of the mayor’s permit granted to petitioner was a product of due
deliberation and investigation. They insisted that petitioner failed to prove that he was authorized to
engage as a common carrier to offer daily tours to Metro Manila and Baguio from Siniloan, Laguna.
Hence, in openly engaging in the business of transport services, petitioner violated the terms and
conditions of the mayor’s permit.

OMB: Dismissed complaint for lack of probable cause; dismissed MR for Graft charge but reversed the
RA No. 6713 charge.

Ombudsman dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. The recommendation was
approved by the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. The stoppage of petitioner’s business operations was
due to the act of the mayor in canceling his business permit.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed MR. The Ombudsman while dismissing the complaint for violation of
Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 for lack of probable cause, it however acknowledged that it
committed a reversible error in not taking consideration of the charge for the violation of Section 5(a) of
Republic Act No. 6713 as contained in petitioner’s Complaint- Affidavit. Ruling on the matter, the
Deputy Ombudsman found that there was no justification on private respondents’ part in ignoring to
reply to petitioner’s letter within the prescribed time, as specified in Republic Act No. 6713, and, hence,
admonished the private respondents for such failure, with a stern warning that a repetition of the
same shall be dealt with more severely.

Aggrieved, petitioner filed the instant Petition for Mandamus, seeking to compel the public respondents
to file the appropriate information for violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 6713, against private
respondents Sangguniang Bayan members of Siniloan, Laguna.

Petitioner theorizes that public respondents can be compelled by a writ of mandamus to file a criminal
information against the private respondents for their violation, instead of merely admonishing them.
There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to him in the ordinary course of law.
According to him, the Complaint was for a criminal offense, and not simply a case of administrative
misfeasance.

ISSUE: W/N Petition for Mandamus is proper to compel the Ombudsman to file a criminal case against
the local officials of Siniloan Laguna pursuant to its finding that they violated Sec. 5(a) RA 6713 for
failing to respond to Calim’s letter within the prescribed time. – NO

HELD:
Discussion on Mandamus
It is elementary that mandamus applies as a remedy only where petitioner's right is founded clearly on
law and not when it is doubtful. In varying language, the principle echoed and reechoed is that legal
rights may be enforced by mandamus only if those rights are well-defined, clear and certain. A writ of
mandamus can be issued only when petitioner's legal right to the performance of a particular act which
is sought to be compelled is clear and complete. A clear legal right is a right which is indubitably
granted by law or is inferable as a matter of law. Mandamus, therefore, is employed to compel the
performance, when refused, of a ministerial duty, this being its chief use and not a discretionary duty.

Mandamus will not issue to control or review the exercise of discretion of a public officer where the law
imposes upon said public officer the right and duty to exercise his judgment in reference to any matter in
which he is required to act. It is his judgment that is to be exercised and not that of the court.

Writ of Mandamus is not proper

Essentially, what petitioner attacks in the instant Petition for Mandamus is the order of the Office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, in admonishing the private respondents. The case partakes of an
administrative disciplinary nature.

Herein, petitioner was not able to establish his entitlement to a writ of mandamus. Petitioner fails to
demonstrate that he has a clear legal right to compel the public respondents to file a criminal information
against the private respondents.
Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the Ombudsman's exercise of his
investigatory and prosecutory powers without good and compelling reasons to indicate otherwise.
Said exercise of powers is based upon his constitutional mandate and the courts will not interfere in its
exercise. Courts have upheld the wide latitude of investigatory and prosecutorial powers that the
Ombudsman enjoys; and such powers are virtually free from executive, legislative or judicial
intervention.

Rationale
The rationale of this rule is based not only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers
that the Office of the Ombudsman is granted under the present Constitution, but upon practicality as
well; otherwise, the functions of the courts would be perilously bound by numerous petitions assailing
the result of the investigatory proceedings conducted by the Office, in much the same way that the
courts would be saturated if compelled to review the prosecutors' exercise of discretion each time they
decide to file an information or dismiss a complaint.

The discretion to prosecute or dismiss a complaint filed before it is lodged in the Office of the
Ombudsman itself. To compel the Ombudsman to further pursue a criminal case against the private
respondents, as petitioner would have it, is outside the ambit of the courts.

Appeals of Ombudsman orders must be filed with CA

A graver reason that impels this court to reject petitioner’s plea is the mode taken by petitioner in
elevating the case to this court.

In Fabian v. Desierto, SC held that only "appeals from the decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman in
administrative disciplinary cases should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule
43.” However, the Fabian ruling does not extend to orders or decisions of the Ombudsman in criminal
cases.

The prevailing rule as instructed in Kuizon v. Ombudsman and Mendoza-Arce v. Office of the
Ombudsman (Visayas), states that petitions for certiorari questioning the Ombudsman’s orders or
decisions in criminal cases should be filed in the SC and not the CA.

The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, in admonishing the private respondents, deemed the matter to be
one in the nature of an administrative disciplinary case. The petitioner, in filing the instant Petition for
Mandamus before this Court, took a route that is antagonistic to prevailing rules and jurisprudence.

RULING: WHEREFORE, under the foregoing premises, the instant Petition for Mandamus is
DISMISSED.