Petitioners Vs Vs Respondent The Solicitor General Danilo C. Cunanan

FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 145389. July 31, 2001.]
Ombudsman ANIANO A. DESIERTO, Customs Commissioner

RENATO A. AMPIL and Captain DOMINGO S. DOCTOR, JR. , petitioners,
vs . RONNIE C. SILVESTRE , respondent.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Danilo C. Cunanan for respondent.
SYNOPSIS
Respondent, Head of the Law Department of the Port of Manila, was suspended
preventively by the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with the administrative
charges for grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of
the service of Task Force Aduana. The only basis for his preventive suspension was the
Affidavit of Arrest and Complaint of petitioner Atty. Doctor wherein the latter alleged that
respondent tried to convince him to cooperate with the withdrawal of the complaint and
its eventual dismissal. No other evidence was presented to substantiate the charge
against respondent. His suspension was affirmed by the Court of Appeals in a petition for
certiorari. Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the only issue discussed between
him and petitioner was the legality of the continued detention of some kitchen wares not
covered by the Warrant of Seizure and Detention. Meanwhile, on February 14, 2001, the
Ombudsman dismissed the administrative charge against respondent.
The dismissal of the administrative charge against respondent renders his preventive
suspension moot and academic.
SYLLABUS
REMEDIAL LAW; ACTIONS; MOOT AND ACADEMIC; CASE AT BAR. — The issue is whether
the Ombudsman has authority to suspend from office respondent Ronnie C. Silvestre
indefinitely on the basis of the administrative complaint filed with his office showing that
evidence of guilt is strong. We need not resolve the issue presented. We dismiss the
petition. It has become moot. On February 14, 2001, the Ombudsman dismissed the
administrative charges against respondent. THDIaC
DECISION
PARDO , J : p
The Case
The petition is one for review on certiorari 1 seeking to set aside (a) the decision of the
Court of Appeals 2 nullifying the preventive suspension order issued by petitioner
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
Ombudsman; and (b) the resolution 3 denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
The Ombudsman issued an order of preventive suspension 4 in connection with the
administrative charges for grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service that Task Force Aduana filed with the Office of the
Ombudsman against respondent Ronnie C. Silvestre and Atty. Redempto Somera.
On February 14, 2000, respondent filed with the Ombudsman a motion for the lifting of the
order of preventive suspension. However, on April 03, 2000, the Ombudsman denied the
motion.
On May 31, 2000, respondent filed with the Court of Appeals 5 a petition for certiorari and
prohibition with temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction questioning
the order of preventive suspension issued by petitioner Ombudsman.
After due proceedings, on August 14, 2000, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision
6 annulling and setting aside the order of preventive suspension against respondent for
having been issued by the Ombudsman in grave abuse of discretion.
On October 06, 2000, the Court of Appeals denied a motion for reconsideration filed by the
Solicitor General. ACTISD
Hence, this petition. 7

The Facts
On January 26, 2000, elements of Task Force "Aduana" headed by petitioner Doctor
conducted an entrapment operation in a case of bribery involving Atty. Redempto C.
Somera, Hearing Officer, Law Division, Bureau of Customs, Manila, and Indian nationals
who had pending cases of seizure with the former.
After the pay-off materialized, petitioner Doctor announced the entrapment and then
arrested Atty. Somera and two (2) Indian nationals, namely, Murli Tejoomal Mohrani and
Kumar Rupchand Khiatani, for violation of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. As a
consequence, the Task Force filed with the Regional Trial Court, Manila, charges of bribery,
violation of R.A. No. 3019, and corruption of public officials against them.
Likewise, the Task Force filed with the Ombudsman administrative charges for grave
misconduct, dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service against
respondent Ronnie C. Silvestre and Atty. Somera.
The Issue
The issue is whether the Ombudsman has authority to suspend from office respondent
Ronnie C. Silvestre indefinitely on the basis of the administrative complaint filed with his
office showing that evidence of guilt is strong.
The Court's Ruling
We need not resolve the issue presented. We dismiss the petition. It has become moot.
On February 14, 2001, the Ombudsman dismissed the administrative charges against
respondent. In dismissing the charges, the Ombudsman categorically ruled as follows:
"It is another story, however, as regards respondent SILVESTRE. In implicating
respondent SILVESTRE in the instant case, Atty. DOCTOR stated in his AFFIDAVIT
OF ARREST AND COMPLAINT, the following:
'6. That after the hearing of the case (S.I. No. 00-005) on January 20,
2000, ATTY. SOMERA approached me and invited me to the room of
ATTY. RONNIE SILVESTRE (herein petitioner), Head of the Law Department
of the Port of Manila wherein the duo convinced me to cooperate with
them in the withdrawal of the complaint and its eventual dismissal; STIcaE
'7. That I did not commit myself to their proposition to drop the case
but I just continued talking with them with the plan in mind to report the
same to LT. GEN. JOSE T. CALIMLIM, Task Force Commander of
Presidential Anti-Smuggling Task Force ADUANA;'
"Except this bare allegation of the complainant, however, practically no other
evidence was ever presented to substantiate the charge against respondent
SILVESTRE. At this point, it may be noted that well settled is the rule that within
the field of administrative law, while strict rules of evidence are not applicable to
quasi-judicial proceedings, nevertheless, in adducing evidence constitutive of
substantial evidence, the basic rule that mere allegation is not evidence cannot be
disregarded.
"We are, therefore inclined to believe the defense of respondent SILVESTRE, that
what was discussed between him, respondent SOMERA and Atty. DOCTOR on
January 20, 2000, was the legal issue on the continued detention of some kitchen
wares which were not covered by the Warrant of Seizure and Detention (WSD).
This, in light of subsequent Order of the District Collector of the Port of Manila
dated March 2, 2000, releasing the said kitchen wares which were indeed, not
covered by the Warrant of Seizure and Detention (WSD) . . .
"Worthy of note also is the DECISION of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
58958 dated August 14, 2000 entitled RONNIE C. SILVESTRE vs. OMBUDSMAN
ANIANO A. DESIERTO, (pages 253 to 254, Records) where in granting the petition
for certiorari and prohibition involving the preventive suspension order on
respondent SILVESTRE, the said appellate court stated, thus:
"xxx xxx xxx
"While the above DECISION may not necessarily be controlling in the resolution of
the merits of the instant case insofar as it pertains to respondent SILVESTRE, we
cannot help but note its relevancy inasmuch as practically no other evidence was
presented by the complainant, other than his AFFIDAVIT OF ARREST AND
COMPLAINT to support the charge against respondent SILVESTRE. Needless to
state, this is also the very same and only evidence presented before the Court of
Appeals which rendered the aforequoted DECISION." cIADTC
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for mootness.

No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr., C.J., is on official business.
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 7-21.

2. Petition, Annex "A", Rollo, pp. 23-27.
3. Ibid., Annex "B", Rollo, p. 29.
4. Dated February 02, 2000.
5. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 58958.
6. Villarama, Jr., J., ponente, Montoya and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concurring.
7. Filed on November 27, 2000. On April 4, 2001, we gave due course to the petition. Rollo,
pp. 70-71.

Petitioners Vs Vs Respondent The Solicitor General Danilo C. Cunanan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners Vs Vs Respondent The Solicitor General Danilo C. Cunanan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Petitioners Vs Vs Respondent The Solicitor General Danilo C. Cunanan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 145389. July 31, 2001.]

Ombudsman ANIANO A. DESIERTO, Customs Commissioner

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Hence, this petition. 7

"xxx xxx xxx

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DISMISSES the petition for mootness.

1. Rollo, pp. 7-21.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like