OLIVER ZAMORA AND CORAZON CARPIO-ZAMORA, vs. . FROLIBAR BAUTISTA (SG-25), ACTING MUNICIPAL MAYOR, MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN; ATTY. MELANIO PRADO, JR. (SG-24), MUNICIPAL LEGAL COUNSEL, MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN; MARIANE SALVACION (SG-24), MENRO OFFICER, MUNICIPALITY OF MALAY, AKLAN; RANDY…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 272888
- Promulgated: 2025-08-13
- Ponente: HERNANDO, J.
Doctrine
## Facts of the Case Oliver Zamora and Corazon Carpio-Zamora (petitioners) are the President and Corporate Secretary of ECOS Sanitary Landfill and Waste Management Corporation (ECOS). ECOS entered into a Public-Private-Partnership (PPP) Agreement with the Municipality of Malay, Aklan (LGU) for waste hauling and the design, construction, management, and operation of a sanitary landfill. The LGU was reportedly delayed in paying tipping and hauling fees, leading ECOS to send demand letters and a Notice of Default. The LGU, through Acting Municipal Mayor Frolibar Bautista (Bautista), discovered several environmental violations at the ECOS landfill, as noted by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources – Environmental Management Bureau (DENR-EMB). ECOS, citing the LGU's payment defaults, refused a joint inspection. Bautista then informed ECOS of the LGU's intent to exercise its "step-in rights" under the PPP Agreement. Oliver Zamora subsequently issued a Notice of Termination of the PPP Agreement and announced the closure of the landfill. On June 10, 2021, LGU representatives, including Atty. Melanio Prado, Jr., Jose Ocson, Jr., and Nonoy Gil Caliso, allegedly cut the padlock of ECOS's gate, removed a backhoe, and physically confronted an ECOS employee, with Police Lieutenant Colonel Don Dicksie Lukban de Dios and Police Chief Master Sergeant Reynold C. Galicha present. Petitioners filed criminal complaints for grave coercion, usurpation of real rights in property, and violations of Sections 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019, and an administrative complaint for violation of Republic Act No. 6713 against the respondents. The Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) dismissed both complaints for lack of probable cause and substantial evidence, respectively. Petitioners challenged this decision via a Petition for Certiorari before the Supreme Court. ## Issues 1. Has the administrative aspect of the Ombudsman's ruling attained finality? 2. Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to indict respondents for grave coercion? 3. Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to indict respondents for usurpation of real rights in property? 4. Did the Ombudsman commit grave abuse of discretion in finding no probable cause to indict respondents for violations of Section 3(a) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019? ## Decision / Rationale **Issue 1:** The Supreme Court ruled that **the administrative aspect of the Ombudsman's ruling has already attained finality** and should be dismissed. Rule III, Section 7 of the **Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman** states that when a respondent is absolved of an administrative charge, "the decision shall be final, executory and unappealable." Petitioners' recourse to the Supreme Court via an original **certiorari** petition under Rule 65 was procedurally infirm, as appeals from the Ombudsman's administrative rulings should generally be lodged before the Court of Appeals via a Rule 43 petition, if appealable at all. **Issue 2:** The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding that **there was no probable cause for grave coercion**. The third element of grave coercion, which requires that the restraint be "not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right," was absent. The LGU exercised its "step-in rights" under Article 17.1 of the **PPP Agreement** after ECOS refused to cooperate in addressing environmental violations. The LGU provided ECOS with advanced notice of its intention to exercise these rights, and the conditions for their exercise, as stipulated in the agreement, were met. The extent of force used (cutting a padlock, moving a backhoe) was deemed a necessary consequence of assuming operational responsibility. The involvement of police officers was limited to maintaining peace and order. **Issue 3:** The Court affirmed the Ombudsman's finding that **there was no probable cause for usurpation of…
Keywords
phil., [per, ecos, office, under, rights, division]., ombudsman, republic, grave, sanitary, exercise, citing, ombudsman's, landfill