17 Mendiola v People TTL G
Notably, no public bidding for the construction was contemplated or
Petitioners: Lorenzo Mendoza
Respondents: People of the Philippines & Sandiganbayan
DOCTRINE: Kinds of Duties
(1) Ministerial: duty is ministerial when it is absolute, certain and imperative
involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and
designated facts. Where the officer or official body has no judicial power or
discretion as to the interpretation of the law, and the course to be pursued is
fixed by law, their acts are ministerial only.
(2) Discretionary: Acts which necessarily require the exercise of reason in the
adaptation of means to an end, and discretion in determining how or whether
the act shall be done or the course pursued. When the law commits to any
officer the duty of looking into facts and acting upon them, not in a way which
it specifically directs, but after a discretion in its nature, the function is
discretionary (e.g. quasi-judicial acts).
Every public officer acting in discharge of his official duties is entitled to the
presumption that such acts are done in good faith\.
So long as the requirements to receive documents (IN THIS CASE: certificates of
partial occupancy) under the law are fullfilled/adhered to, the public officer has
the ministerial duty to issue whatever the document being requested
*there are other discussions and facts in the case, this is focused on the topic
under the syllabus: Liability of PubOff, Kinds of Duties.
FACTS:
1. 1984: Following the fire that destroyed the Angono Public Market, the former
stallholders including Zenaida Ortillada, Marlon Rosales, and Ruben
Blanco (Mendiolas relatives&friend) were issued temporary business
permits and allowed to construct temporary market stalls on the grounds of
the old market stood. The area of the old market was known Angono Public
Market Phase I (APM I).
2. 1987: After a change of government, the Angono Municipal the Angono
Municipal Council, headed by Officer-in-Charge Nemesio Miranda, Sr.,
(Miranda) enacted Reso No. 7-1987 (Reso 1). Content:
a. authorized the construction of Angono Public Market Phase II (APM
II) on a vacant lot adjacent to APM I.
b. FINANCING: a contract was entered between
(1) a building contractor (b)
(2) a Construction Committee representing the stall awardees of APM
II
(3) Miranda signing on behalf of the Municipality of Angono,
c. Each awardee would pay the contractor P20k for APM IIs construction
d. Sum paid was to be considered as advance stall rentals to the
Municipality for 20yrs.
e. The Municipality shall own the market building upon turnover at
completion by contractor.
f.
provided for.
3. Lorenzo Mendiola was then Municipal Planning and Development
Coordinator, Civil Registrar, and was concurrently Acting Building Official
of Angono. On 12 March 1987, he issued the Municipality a Building Permit
relating to the construction of APM II. At the time of issuance of the
permit, he noted on APM IIs construction blue-print, He encircled the points
to be corrected to eliminate the encroachment. But of course, the market
stalls encroached upon were that of Mendiolas relatives&friend
4. Aside from this, other conflicts arose:
a. APM I stallholders demanded preference in the award or occupancy of
stalls in APM II.
b. APM I stallholders, acting under the name of, "Samahang Nagkakaisa
sa Pamilihang Bayan ng Angono" ("Samahan") brought suit against
Miranda, the contractor and, APM II awardees, for a writ of preliminary
injunction to stop the construction of the new building (this was
denied).
5. For some unstated reason, Mendiolas objection and change to the blue print
was never changed and so in June, 1987, Miranda enacted Reso No. 42-
1987 (Reso 2), cancelling Mendiolas relatives&friends stallholders permits.
Miranda then ordered the contractor to demolish the their stalls.
6. The Feb 1988 local elections yielded another change in the Angono
government. The newly elected Municipal Council promptly assailed the
legality of Reso 1. The Rizal Provincial Board (Board) enacted Reso No. 88-
71 (Reso 3) directing the new Municipal Council to hold Reso 1s
implementation in abeyance, pending review of that Resolution, and "until
further notice by the Board."
7. Under the authority1 of Reso 2, and without prior hearing or a court order and
without a demolition permit, APM IIs contractor, with the aid of the military,
demolished Mendiolas relatives&friends market stalls.
8. Mendiolas relatives&friends applied for authority to renovate their
demolished market stalls, to which Mendiola issued temporary renovation
building, subject to the condition that should the courts or proper higher
authority stop the them from renovating or reconstructing, the permits would
become ineffective.
9. After the demolition of the Phase I stalls the APM II contractor went on with
the contested construction. May 1988, the building contractor requested the
District Engineer of Rizal to inspect the new building and to issue certificates
of partial occupancy. Mendiola was directed to issue the said certificates
to APM II stall awardees. The certificates were to be issued under the
National Building Codes IRR, which provides that the certificates maybe
withheld if there are valid grounds for witholding, provided that In the event
that there are still additional documents needed, the parties concerned
should be informed so they can submit them.
10. Mendiola did not immediately issue the certificates, and instead wrote to the
APM II awardees informing them of their incomplete submission and that
1 The demolition was not expressly mentioned. Remember that Miranda in a separate written
order, ordered the demolition of the stalls.
 there were 5 requirements, still to be complied with, for issuance of the
certificates.
11. Mendiola also wrote to Regional Director Lagunilla that non-issuance of the
certificates of partial occupancy was grounded on:
a. AMP IIs contractor illegally demolishing market stalls, being done
without any demolition order from the courts or the administrative
authorities;
b. the pendency of suits and counter-suits before the courts regarding the
construction of APM II; and
c. refusal of the incumbent municipal officials to accept partial turnover,
which turnover was said to run counter to the terms of Reso 1
12. RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction enjoining the contractor and APM
II awardees from continuing with the construction of the new building and
directing to maintain the status quo until the legality of Reso 1 was reviewed
by the Provincial Board of Rizal.
13. The Phase II awardees took two (2) courses of action: first, they applied for a
certificate of partial occupancy with the Municipal Council, which was denied.
The second recourse was to institute an administrative charge against
Mendiola and to appeal to the Secretary of Public Works and Highways.
14. the Secretary, DPWH, upheld the contractor and Phase II awardeess
position and directed Mendiola to issue "the partial occupancy certificate of
the completed portion or Market Phase II, after their application has been
processed and the fees paid therefor."
15. September 1988, the Angono Municipal Council adopted another resolution
warning the Phase II awardees from opening or doing business at their stalls
in the Phase II building,
16. Mendiola wrote the Secretary of DPWH stating his reasons for refusing to
issue the certificates:
a. No bldg. inspection sheet duly signed & accomplished by the
contractor;
b. Fire safety inspection certificate issued without electrical
permit:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
c. CEI [Certificate of Electrical Inspection] not for the electrical permit of
the completed portion of the building;
d. Electrical permit & sanitary, permit not yet issued by our office due to
questionable layout or plan,"
17. The Sandiganbayan convicted Mendiola, on two separate charges, of
violating provisions2 of RA 3019 Anti-Graft and Corruption Practices Act.
Charges:
2 Sec 3(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 a mere representative or dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled."
Sec 3(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private
party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge 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 offices or
government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions."
(Emphasis supplied)
a. issued building permits for market stalls in favor of his relatives,
who are allegedly not legally entitled to receive permits
b. refused to issue certificates of partial occupancy to awardees of
market stalls in APM II
18. OSG: The first charge should be dismissed and Mendiolas conviction
thereof reversed and be acquitted. The renovation permits where issued in
good faith, only under a mistake of judgment.
ISSUE: Did Mendiola violate his ministerial duty to issue partial occupancy
certificates when he refused to do so? NO. He had reasonable basis for
refusing.
HELD:
First charge: Mendiola acted in good faith in refusing to issue certificates.
Factors tending to show good faith:
a. The renovation permits issued to Mendiolas relatives&friends were
temporary and were qualified by see fact #1.
b. Mendiolas relatives&friends were long-time stallholders, having been so
before the destruction of the old Angono Public Market, hence, not strangers
to APM I.
c. Mendiolas relatives&friend had outstanding and paid-up municipal business
permits when Mendiola issued them the permits.
d. Mendiolas relatives&friends temporary stalls had been demolished without
prior hearing or a court order, or a demolition order from the authorized
building official which was petitioner Mendiola himself.
Thus, whether Mendiolas relatives&friends were legally entitled to the temporary
renovation permits presented a substantial question of law and it is well to recall
that mistake on a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good
faith.
There are other factors, environmental in nature, tending to show good faith on
Mendiolas part, which relate to Reso 1.
a. Reso 1s validity was being litigated before the courts. The records shows
that there were at least 3 cases involving Reso 1s validity or enforceability.
b. Sec DPWHs decision was not really final since the applicable statute itself
provided for an appeal by way a petition for review before the Office of the
President. Mendiola filed not only a MR with the Secretary but also a petition
for review with the Office of the President.
c. Among others not really relavant to topic.
Contrary to the OSGs submission: all the above factors support the claim of
good faith in respect of both the first and second charges against Mendiola.
The question of validity and enforceability of Reso 1 was all pervasive and
inevitably affected both the entitlement of the three (3) Phase I stallholders to the
temporary renovation permits issued by petitioner Mendiola and the entitlement
of the contractor and Phase II awardees to a certificate of partial occupancy of
the admittedly incomplete new building. The facts or events surrounding the first
charge are so intertwined.
Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, requires proof of "manifest partiality"
or "evident bad faith or "gross inexcusable negligence."
The information for violation of Section 3(e) alleged only "evident bad faith." In
the totality of the circumstances of this case, the prosecution failed to show
beyond reasonable doubt the presence of any of these 3 elements.
Indeed, it appears that the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of
good faith to which every public official, acting in discharge of his official duties, is
entitled.
Mendiola, caught between 2 contending groups was constantly trying to specify
in writing the reasons for his acts. While one need not agree with all his acts or
stated reasons therefore or the wisdom thereof, one cannot say that they were so
obviously and palpably sham justifications for merely arbitrary and capricious
acts as to warrant a finding of "evident bad faith."
No one has claimed that he received any money for issuing the renovation
permits or refraining from issuing the demanded certificate(s) of partial
occupancy.
There is also substantial doubt whether the element of "undue injury to any party"
required in Section 3(e) was adequately shown by the prosecution. The
Sandiganbayan apparently overlooked the circumstance that the Phase II
awardees had in fact entered and occupied their respective stalls in the new
building, without waiting for the certificate(s) of partial occupancy which they
demanded from Mendiola and without paying heed to Reso 1 of the new
Municipal Council warning them not to open up their stalls in the still incomplete
new building.
The record strongly suggests that Mendiola had the misfortune of getting caught
in the middle of a heated controversy between two (2) local interest groups and
between the outgoing OIC municipal officials and the incoming newly elected set
of municipal officials. In the course of requiring complete compliance with all
formal and documentary requirements for issuance of a certificate of occupancy
or partial occupancy, he was charged with violation of R.A. No. 3019 as
amended, doubtless at the behest of the Phase II awardees, the contractor and
the old or OIC set of municipal officials.
Had he in fact issued the demanded certificate(s) of partial occupancy, he in all
probability would have been charged criminally by the Samahan of Phase I
stallholders and the newly elected municipal officials, probably under the same
statutory provisions.
Under these circumstances, the filing of the two (2) criminal informations appears
quite unfortunate. MENDIOLA ACQUITTED.