CASIANO A. ANGCHANGCO, JR., petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE OMBUDSMAN

Prior to his retirement, petitioner served as a deputy sheriff and later as Sheriff IV in the Regional Trial Court of Agusan del
Norte and Butuan City.
n August !", #$%$, the &epartment of 'a(or and )mployment *Region +, rendered a de-ision ordering the Nasipit
Integrated Arrastre and Stevedoring Servi-es In-. *NIASSI, to pay its .or/ers the sum of P#,!%#,012.202. The de-ision having
attained finality, a .rit of e3e-ution .as issued dire-ting the Provin-ial Sheriff of Agusan del Norte or his deputies to satisfy the
same. Petitioner, as the assigned sheriff and pursuant to the .rit of e3e-ution issued, -aused the satisfa-tion of the de-ision (y
garnishing NIASSI4s daily -olle-tions from its various -lients.
In an attempt to en5oin the further enfor-ement of the .rit of e3e-ution, Atty. Tran6uilino . Calo, 7r., President of NIASSI, filed
a -omplaint for prohi(ition and damages against petitioner. The regional trial -ourt initially issued a temporary restraining order (ut
later dismissed the -ase for la-/ of 5urisdi-tion.
In addition to the -ivil -ase, Atty. Calo li/e.ise filed (efore the ffi-e of the m(udsman a -omplaint against petitioner for
graft, estafa8malversation and mis-ondu-t relative to the enfor-ement of the .rit of e3e-ution. A-ting on the -omplaint, the
m(udsman, in a 9emorandum dated 7uly :#, #$$!, re-ommended its dismissal for la-/ of merit.
9ean.hile, from 7une !2 to !%, #$$0, several .or/ers of NIASSI filed letters;-omplaints .ith the ffi-e of the m(udsman;
9indanao alleging, among others things, that petitioner illegally dedu-ted an amount e6uivalent to !2< from their differential pay.
The ffi-e of the m(udsman;9indanao endorsed to the Court the administrative aspe-t of the -omplaints .hi-h .as do-/eted
hereat as A.9. No. $:;#0;:%2;9B. The Court in an )n Ban- Resolution dated Novem(er !2, #$$: dismissed the -ase for la-/ of
interest on the part of -omplainants to pursue their -ase.
Although the administrative aspe-t of the -omplaints had already (een dismissed, the -riminal -omplaints remained pending
and unresolved, prompting petitioner to file several omni(us motions for early resolution.
=hen petitioner retired in Septem(er #$$", the -riminal -omplaints still remained unresolved, as a -onse6uen-e of .hi-h
petitioner4s re6uest for -learan-e in order that he may 6ualify to re-eive his retirement (enefits .as denied.
=ith the -riminal -omplaints remaining unresolved for more than 1 years, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, invo/ing Tatad
vs. Sandigan(ayan *>.R. No. ?!::2;:$, 9ar-h !#, #$%%,. Sad to say, even this motion to dismiss, ho.ever, has not (een a-ted
upon. @en-e, the instant petition.
A-ting on the petition, the Court issued a resolution dated &e-em(er !0, #$$2 re6uiring respondents to -omment thereon. In
-omplian-e there.ith, the ffi-e of the Soli-itor >eneral filed a 9anifestation and 9otion *in lieu of Comment,, .hi-h is its .ay of
saying it agreed .ith the vie.s of petitioner. n 7uly !!, #$$1, .e issued another resolution re6uiring the m(udsman to file his
o.n -omment on the petition if he so desires, other.ise, the petition .ill (e deemed su(mitted for resolution .ithout su-h -omment.
After several e3tensions, respondent m(udsman, through the ffi-e of the Spe-ial Prose-utor, filed a -omment dated -to(er ?,
#$$1.
The Court finds the present petition to (e impressed .ith merit.
9andamus is a .rit -ommanding a tri(unal, -orporation, (oard, or person to do the a-t re6uired to (e done .hen it or he
unla.fully negle-ts the performan-e of an a-t .hi-h the la. spe-ifi-ally en5oins as a duty resulting from an offi-e, trust, or station, or
unla.fully e3-ludes another from the use and en5oyment of a right or offi-e to .hi-h su-h other is entitled, there (eing no other
plain, speedy, and ade6uate remedy in the ordinary -ourse of la. *Se-tion : of Rule 12 of the Rules of Court,.
After a -areful revie. of the fa-ts and -ir-umstan-es of the present -ase, the Court finds the inordinate delay of more than si3
years (y the m(udsman in resolving the -riminal -omplaints against petitioner to (e violative of his -onstitutionally guaranteed
right to due pro-ess and to a speedy disposition of the -ases against him, thus .arranting the dismissal of said -riminal -ases
pursuant to the pronoun-ement of the Court inTatad vs. Sandigan(ayan *#2$ SCRA ?0 A#$%%B,, .herein the Court, spea/ing through
7usti-e Cap, saidD
We find the long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the Tanodbayan in the instant case to be violative of the
constitutional right of the accused to due process. Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing the conduct of preliminary
investigation, including substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by the law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor, is
part of the procedural due process constitutionally guaranteed by the fundamental law. Not only under the broad umbrella of the due process
clause, but under the constitutional guarantee of "speedy disposition" of cases as embodied in Section 1 of the !ill of "ight #both in the 1$%&
and the 1$'% (onstitutions), the inordinate delay is violative of the petitioner*s constitutional rights. + delay of close to three #&) years can not be
deemed reasonable or ,ustifiable in the light of the circumstance obtaining in the case at bar. We are not impressed by the attempt of the
Sandiganbayan to saniti-e the long delay by indulging in the speculative assumption that "the delay may be due to a painsta.ing and grueling
scrutiny by the Tanodbayan as to whether the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation merited prosecution of a former high/
ran.ing government official." 0n the first place, such a statement suggests a double standard of treatment, which must be emphatically re,ected.
Secondly, three out of the five charges against the petitioner were for his alleged failure to file his sworn statement of assets and liabilities
required by "epublic +ct No. &11$, which certainly did not involve complicated legal and factual issues necessitating such "painsta.ing and
grueling scrutiny" as would ,ustify a delay of almost three years in terminating the preliminary investigation. The other two charges relating to
alleged bribery and alleged giving of unwarranted benefits to a relative, while presenting more substantial legal and factual issues, certainly do
not warrant or ,ustify the period of three years, which it too. the Tanodbayan to resolve the case.
0t has been suggested that the long delay in terminating the preliminary investigation should not be deemed fatal, for even the complete absence
of a preliminary investigation does not warrant dismissal of the information. True 2 but the absence of a preliminary investigation can not be
corrected, for until now, man has not yet invented a device for setting bac. time.
Verily, the ffi-e of the m(udsman in the instant -ase has failed to dis-harge its duty mandated (y the Constitution Eto
promptly a-t on -omplaints filed in any form or manner against pu(li- offi-ials and employees of the government, or any su(division,
agen-y or instrumentality thereof.E
9andamus is employed to -ompel the performan-e, .hen refused, of a ministerial duty, this (eing its -hief use and not a
dis-retionary duty. It is nonetheless li/e.ise availa(le to -ompel a-tion, .hen refused, in matters involving 5udgment and dis-retion,
(ut not to dire-t the e3er-ise of 5udgment or dis-retion in a parti-ular .ay or the retra-tion or reversal of an a-tion already ta/en in
the e3er-ise of either *Rules of Court in the Philippines, Volume III (y 9artin, "th )dition, page !::,.
It is -orre-t, as averred in the -omment that in the performan-e of an offi-ial duty or a-t involving dis-retion, the -orresponding
offi-ial -an only (e dire-ted (y mandamus to a-t, (ut not to a-t one .ay or the other. @o.ever, this rule admits of e3-eptions su-h
as in -ases .here there is gross a(use of dis-retion, manifest in5usti-e, or palpa(le e3-ess of authority *Fant F.ong vs. PC>>, #21
SCRA !!!, !:! A#$%?B,.
@ere, the ffi-e of the m(udsman, due to its failure to resolve the -riminal -harges against petitioner for more than si3
years, has transgressed on the -onstitutional right of petitioner to due pro-ess and to a speedy disposition of the -ases against him,
as .ell as the m(udsman4s o.n -onstitutional duty to a-t promptly on -omplaints filed (efore it. Gor all these past 1 years,
petitioner has remained under a -loud, and sin-e his retirement in Septem(er #$$", he has (een deprived of the fruits of his
retirement after serving the government for over "! years all (e-ause of the ina-tion of respondent m(udsman. If .e .ait any
longer, it may (e too late for petitioner to re-eive his retirement (enefits, not to spea/ of -learing his name. This is a -ase of plain
in5usti-e .hi-h -alls for the issuan-e of the .rit prayed for.