327. ganzon vs ca.doc

8/10/2019 327. ganzon vs ca.doc

1/6

RODOLFO T. GANZON, petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS T. SANTOS, respondents.

The petitioners take common issue on the power of the President (acting through the Secretary of Local Government), to suspendandor remove local officials.

The petitioners are the !ayor of "loilo #ity (G.$. %os. &' and &*) and a mem+er of the Sangguniang Panglunsod thereof (G.$.

%o. &'*-), respectively.

The petitions of !ayor Ganon originated from a series of administrative complaints, ten in num+er, filed against him +y various cityofficials sometime in /&00, on various charges, among them, a+use of authority, oppression, grave misconduct, disgraceful andimmoral conduct, intimidation, culpa+le violation of the #onstitution, and ar+itrary detention. 1The personalities involved are 1oceleehn#a+aluna, a clerk at the city health office2 Salvador #a+aluna, her hus+and2 3r. 4elicidad 5rtigoa, 6ssistant #ity 7ealth 5fficer2!ansueto !ala+or, 8ice9!ayor2 $olando 3a+ao, 3an 3alido, German Gonales, Larry 5ng, and :duardo Pefia $edondo mem+ers ofthe Sangguniang Panglunsod2 and Pancho :r+ite, a +arangay tanod. The complaints against the !ayor are set forth in the opinion ofthe respondent #ourt of 6ppeals. 2;e >> >>> >>>

"n her verified complaint (6nne> 6), !rs. #a+aluna, a clerk assigned to the #ity 7ealth, 5ffice of "loilo #ity chargedthat due to political reasons, having supported the rival candidate, !rs. $osa ?. #aram, the petitioner #ity !ayor,

using as an e>cuse the e>igency of the service and the interest of the pu+lic, pulled her out from rightful office whereher planation or

Austification2 that her salary was withheld without cause since 6pril /, /&002 that when she filed her vacation leave,she was given the run9around treatment in the approval of her leave in connivance with 3r. $odolfo 8illegas and thatshe was the o+Aect of a well9engineered trumped9up charge in an administrative complaint filed +y 3r. $odolfo8illegas (6nne> B).

5n the other hand, !ansuelo !ala+or is the duly elected 8ice9!ayor of "loilo #ity and complainants $olando 3a+ao,

3an 3alido, German Gonales, Larry 5ng and :duardo Pefia Pedondo are mem+ers of the SangguniangPanglunsod of the #ity of "loilo. Their complaint arose out from the case where #ouncilor Larry 5ng, whose key to hisoffice was unceremoniously and without previous notice, taken +y petitioner. ;ithout an office, #ouncilor 5ng had tohold office at Plaa Li+ertad, The 8ice9!ayor and the other complainants sympathied with him and decided to do thesame. 7owever, the petitioner, together with its fully9armed security men, forcefully drove them away from PlaaLi+ertad. #ouncilor 5ng denounced the petitioner@s actuations the following day in the radio station and decided tohold office at the 4reedom Grandstand at "loilo #ity and there were so many people who gathered to witness theincident. 7owever, +efore the group could reach the area, the petitioner, together with his security men, led thefiremen using a firetruck in doing water to the people and the +ystanders.

6nother administrative case was filed +y Pancho :r+ite, a +arangay tanod, appointed +y former mayor $osa 5.#aram. 5n !arch /', /&00, without the +enefit of charges filed against him and no warrant of arrest was issued,:r+ite was arrested and detained at the #ity 1ail of "loilo #ity upon orders of petitioner. "n Aail, he was allegedlymauled +y other detainees there+y causing inAuries 7e was released only the following day. 3

The !ayor thereafter answered 4and the cases were shortly set for hearing. The opinion of the #ourt of 6ppeals also set forth thesucceeding events=

>>> >>> >>>

The initial hearing in the #a+aluna and 5rtigoa cases were set for hearing on 1une ?9/, /&00 at the $egional5ffice of the 3epartment of Local Government in "loilo #ity. %otices, through telegrams, were sent to the parties(6nne> L) and the parties received them, including the petitioner. The petitioner asked for a postponement +efore thescheduled date of hearing and was represented +y counsel, 6tty. Samuel #astro. The hearing officers, 6tty. SalvadorCue+ral and 6tty. !arino Bermude had to come all the way from !anila for the two9day hearings +ut was actuallyheld only on 1une ?,/&00 in view of the ina+ility and unpreparedness of petitioner@s counsel.

The ne>t hearings were re9set to 1uly , -, ,/&00 in the same venue9"loilo #ity. 6gain, the petitioner attempted to

delay the proceedings and moved for a postponement under the e>cuse that he had Aust hired his counsel.%onetheless, the hearing officers denied the motion to postpone, in view of the fact that the parties were notified +ytelegrams of the scheduled hearings (6nne> !).

"n the said hearings, petitioner@s counsel cross9e>amined the complainants and their witnesses.

4inding pro+a+le grounds and reasons, the respondent issued a preventive suspension order on 6ugust //, /&00 tolast until 5cto+er //,/&00 for a period of si>ty (-?) days.

Then the ne>t investigation was set on Septem+er /, /&00 and the petitioner again asked for a postponement toSeptem+er -,/&00. 5n Septem+er -, /&00, the complainants and petitioner were present, together with theirrespective counsel. The petitioner sought for a postponement which was denied. "n these hearings which were heldin !ala the petitioner testified in 6dm. #ase %o. #9/?&0 and /?&&.


2/6

The investigation was continued regarding the !ala+or case and the complainants testified including their witnesses.

5n 5cto+er /?, /&00, petitioner@s counsel, 6tty. 5riginal moved for a postponement of the 5cto+er *, /&00 hearingto %ovem+er to //, /&00 which was granted. 7owever, the motion for change of venue as denied due to lack offunds. 6t the hearing on %ovem+er , /&00, the parties and counsel were present. Petitioner reiterated his motion tochange venue and moved for postponement anew. The counsel discussed a proposal to take the deposition ofwitnesses in "loilo #ity so the hearing was indefinitely postponed. 7owever, the parties failed to come to terms andafter the parties were notified of the hearing, the investigation was set to 3ecem+er /' to /, /&00.

The petitioner sought for another postponement on the ground that his witnesses were sick or cannot attend theinvestigation due to lack of transportation. The motion was denied and the petitioner was given up to 3ecem+er /*,/&00 to present his evidence.

5n 3ecem+er /*,/&00, petitioner@s counsel insisted on his motion for postponement and the hearing officers gavepetitioner up to 3ecem+er /, /&00 to present his evidence. 5n 3ecem+er /, /&00, the petitioner failed to presentevidence and the cases were considered su+mitted for resolution.

"n the meantime, a prima facie evidence was found to e>ist in the ar+itrary detention case filed +y Pancho :r+ite sothe respondent ordered the petitioner@s second preventive suspension dated 5cto+er //, /&00 for another si>ty (-?)days. The petitioner was a+le to o+tain a restraining order and a writ of preliminary inAunction in the $egional Trial#ourt, Branch '' of "loilo #ity. The second preventive suspension was not enforced. 5

6midst the two successive suspensions, !ayor Ganon instituted an action for prohi+ition against the respondent Secretary of LocalGovernment (now, "nterior) in the $egional Trial #ourt, "loilo #ity, where he succeeded in o+taining a writ of preliminary inAunction.Presently, he instituted #69G.$. SP %o. /-*/, an action for prohi+ition, in the respondent #ourt of 6ppeals.

!eanwhile, on !ay ', /&&?, the respondent Secretary issued another order, preventively suspending !ayor Ganon for another si>tydays, the third time in twenty months, and designating meantime 8ice9!ayor !ansueto !ala+or as acting mayor. Dndaunted, !ayorGanon commenced #69G.$. SP %o. ?'- of the #ourt of 6ppeals, a petition for prohi+ition, 6(!ala+or it is to +e noted, is one of thecomplainants, and hence, he is interested in seeing !ayor Ganon ousted.)

5n Septem+er , /&0&, the #ourt of 6ppeals rendered Audgment, dismissing #69G.$. SP %o. /-*/. 5n 1uly , /&&?, it likewisepromulgated a decision, dismissing #69G.$. SP %o. ?'-. "n a $esolution dated 1anuary *, /&&?, it issued a $esolution certifyingthe petition of !ary 6nn 6rtieda, who had +een similary charged +y the respondent Secretary, to this #ourt.

5n 1une -,/&&?, we issued a Temporary $estraining 5rder, +arring the respondent Secretary from implementing the suspension

orders, and restraining the enforcement of the #ourt of 6ppeals@ two decisions.

"n our $esolution of %ovem+er &, /&&?, we consolidated all three cases. "n our $esolutions of 1anuary /, /&&/, we gave due coursethereto.

!ayor Ganon claims as a preliminary (G$ %o. &'), that the 3epartment of Local Government in hearing the ten cases against him,had denied him due process of law and that the respondent Secretary had +een E+iased, preAudicial and hostileE towards him 7arisingfrom his (!ayor Ganon@s) alleged refusal to Aoin the La+an ng 3emokratikong Pilipino party and the running political rivalry theymaintained in the last congressional and local elections2 !and his alleged refusal to operate a lottery in "loilo #ity. 1"7e also alleges thathe re


3/6

The #ourt can not say, under these circumstances, that Secretary Santos@ actuations deprived !ayor Ganon of due process of law.

;e come to the core ercise the power of suspension andor removal over local officials. 6ccording to +oth petitioners, the #onstitution is meant, first, tostrengthen self9rule +y local government units and second, +y deleting the phrase 21as may +e provided +y law to strip the President of

the power of control over local governments. "t is a view, so they contend, that finds support in the de+ates of the #onstitutional#ommission. The provision in ercise general supervision over local governments. Provinces withrespect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and municipalities with respect to component +arangaysshall ensure that the acts of their component units are within the scope of their prescri+ed powers and functions. 22

"t modifies a counterpart provision appearing in the /&' #onstitution, which we ecutive departments, +ureaus, or offices, e>ercise generalsupervision over all Local governments as may +e provided +y law, and take care that the laws +e faithfullye>ecuted. 23

The petitioners su+mit that the deletion (of Eas may +e provided +y lawE) is significant, as their argument goes, since= (/) the power ofthe President is Eprovided +y lawE and () hence, no law may provide for it any longer.

"t is to +e noted that in meting out the suspensions under tend +eyond si>ty days after the start of said suspension.

(') 6t the e>piration of si>ty days, the suspended official shall +e deemed reinstated in office without preAudice to thecontinuation of the proceedings against him until its termination. 7owever @ if the delay in the proceedings of the caseis due to his fault, neglect or reercise removal powers, and asthe e>isting Local Government #ode has done, delegate its e>ercise to the President. Thus=

Sec. '. The #ongress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more responsive andaccounta+le local government structure instituted through a system of decentraliation with effective mechanisms of


4/6

recall, initiative, and referendum, allocate among the different local government units their powers, responsi+ilitiesand resources, and provide for the isting legislation authories the President (through theSecretary of Local Government) to proceed against local officials administratively, the #onstitution contains no prohi+ition.

The petitioners are under the impression that the #onstitution has left the President mere supervisory powers, which supposedlye>cludes the power of investigation, and denied her control, which allegedly em+races disciplinary authority. "t is a mistaken impression+ecause legally, EsupervisionE is not incompati+le with disciplinary authority as this #ourt has held, 34thus=

>>> >>> >>>

"t is true that in the case of !ondano vs. Silvosa, / 5ff. Ga., %o. - p. 00*, this #ourt had occasion to discuss thescope and e>tent of the power of supervision +y the President over local government officials in contrast to the powerof control given to him over e>ecutive officials of our government wherein it was emphasied that the two terms,control and supervision, are two different things which differ one from the other in meaning and e>tent. Thus in thatcase the #ourt has made the following digression= E"n administration law supervision means overseeing or the poweror authority of an officer to see that su+ordinate officers perform their duties. "f the latter fail or neglect to fulfill them

the former may take such action or step as prescri+ed +y law to make them perform their duties. #ontrol, on the otherhand, means the power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify of set aside what a su+ordinate officer had done in theperformance of his duties and to su+stitute the Audgment of the former for that of the latter.E But from thispronouncement it cannot +e reasona+ly inferred that the power of supervision of the President over local governmentofficials does not include the power of investigation when in his opinion the good of the pu+lic service so re>> >>> >>>

E#ontrolE has +een defined as Ethe power of an officer to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a su+ordinate officer had done in theperformance of his duties and to su+stitute the Audgment of the former for test of the latter.E36ESupervisionE on the other hand meansEoverseeing or the power or authority of an officer to see that su+ordinate officers perform their duties. 376s we held, 3however,EinvestigatingE is not inconsistent with EoverseeingE, although it is a lesser power than EalteringE. The impression is apparentlye>acer+ated +y the #ourt@s pronouncements in at least three cases,Lacson v. Roque, 3!Hebron v. Reyes, 4"and Mondano v.

Silvosa,

41

and possi+ly, a fourth one, Pelae v. 6uditor General.

42

"n Lacson, this #ourt said that the President enAoyed no controlpowers +ut only supervision Eas may +e provided +y law,E43a rule we reiterated in Hebron, and Mondano. "n Pelaez, we stated that thePresident Emay not . . . suspend an elective official of a regular municipality or take any disciplinary action against him, e>cept onappeal from a decision of the corresponding provincial +oard.E 447owever, neither Lacsonnor Hebronnor Mondanocategorically+anned the #hief :>ecutive from e>ercising acts of disciplinary authority +ecause she did not e>ercise control powers, +ut +ecause nolaw allowed her to e>ercise disciplinary authority. Thus, according to Lacson=

The contention that the President has inherent power to remove or suspend municipal officers is without dou+t notwell taken. $emoval and suspension of pu+lic officers are always controlled +y the particular law applica+le and itsproper construction su+Aect to constitutional limitations. 45

"n Hebronwe stated=

6ccordingly, when the procedure for the suspension of an officer is specified +y law, the same must +e deemed

mandatory and adhered to strictly, in the a+sence of e>press or clear provision to the contrary9which does not et withrespect to municipal officers ... 46

"n Mondano, the #ourt held=

... The #ongress has e>pressly and specifically lodged the provincial supervision over municipal officials in theprovincial governor who is authoried to Ereceive and investigate complaints made under oath against municipalofficers for neglect of duty, oppression, corruption or other form of maladministration of office, and conviction +y final

Audgment of any crime involving moral turpitude.E 6nd if the charges are serious, Ehe shall su+mit written chargestouching the matter to the provincial +oard, furnishing a copy of such charges to the accused either personally or +yregistered mail, and he may in such case suspend the officer (not +eing the municipal treasurer) pending action +ythe +oard, if in his opinion the charge +y one affecting the official integrity of the officer in ercised +y the 3epartment 7ead overthe administration of ... municipalities ... . "f it +e construed that it does and such additional power is the same

authority as that vested in the 3epartment 7ead +y section &(c) of the $evised 6dministrative #ode, then suchadditional power must +e deemed to have +een a+rogated +y Section //?(l), 6rticle 8"" of the #onstitution. 47

>>> >>> >>>

"n Pelaez, we stated that the President can not impose disciplinary measures on local officials e>cept on appeal from the provincial+oard pursuant to the 6dministrative #ode. 4

Thus, in those case that this #ourt denied the President the power (to suspendremove) it was not +ecause we did not think that thePresident can not e>ercise it on account of his limited power, +ut +ecause the law lodged the power elsewhere. But in those cases iiwhich the law gave him the power, the #ourt, as in Ganzon v. ayanan, found little difficulty in sustaining him. 4!


5/6

The #ourt does not +elieve that the petitioners can rightfully point to the de+ates of the #onstitutional #ommission to defeat thePresident@s powers. The #ourt +elieves that the deli+erations are +y themselves inconclusive, +ecause although #ommissioner 1ose%olledo would e>clude the power of removal from the President, 5"#ommissioner Blas 5ple would not. 51

The #ourt is conseceed si>ty days, 62which is to say that it need not +e e>actly si>ty days long if a shorter period isotherwise sufficient, and which is also to say that it ought to +e lifted if prosecutors have achieved their purpose in a shorter span.

Suspension is not a penalty and is not unlike preventive imprisonment in which the accused is held to insure his presence at the trial. "n+oth cases, the accused (the respondent) enAoys a presumption of innocence unless and until found guilty.

Suspension finally is temporary and as the Local Government #ode provides, it may +e imposed for no more than si>ty days. 6s weheld, 63a longer suspension is unAust and unreasona+le, and we might add, nothing less than tyranny.

6s we o+served earlier, imposing -?? days of suspension which is not a remote possi+ility !ayor Ganon is to all intents and purposes,to make him spend the rest of his term in inactivity. "t is also to make, to all intents and purposes, his suspension permanent.

"t is also, in fact, to mete out punishment in spite of the fact that the !ayor@s guilt has not +een proven. ;orse, any a+solution will +e fornaught +ecause needless to say, the length of his suspension would have, +y the time he is reinstated, wiped out his tenureconsidera+ly.


6/6

The #ourt is not to +e mistaken for o+structing the efforts of the respondent Secretary to see that Austice is done in "loilo #ity, yet it ishardly any argument to inflict on !ayor Ganon successive suspensions when apparently, the respondent Secretary has had sufficienttime to gather the necessary evidence to +uild a case against the !ayor without suspending him a day longer. ;hat is intriguing is thatthe respondent Secretary has +een cracking down, so to speak, on the !ayor piecemeal apparently, to pin him down ten times thepain, when he, the respondent Secretary, could have pursued a consolidated effort.

;e reiterate that we are not precluding the President, through the Secretary of "nterior from e>ercising a legal power, yet we are of theopinion that the Secretary of "nterior is e>ercising that power oppressively, and needless to say, with a grave a+use of discretion.

The #ourt is aware that only the third suspension is under ty daysmore is argua+ly around the corner (which amounts to a violation of the Local Government #ode which +rings to light a pattern ofsuspensions intended to suspend the !ayor the rest of his natural tenure. The #ourt is simply foreclosing what appears to us as aconcerted effort of the State to perpetuate an ar+itrary act.

6s we said, we can not tolerate such a state of affairs.

;e are therefore allowing !ayor $odolfo Ganon to suffer the duration of his third suspension and lifting, for the purpose, theTemporary $estraining 5rder earlier issued. "nsofar as the seven remaining charges are concerned, we are urging the 3epartment ofLocal Government, upon the finality of this 3ecision, to undertake steps to e>pedite the same, su+Aect to !ayor Ganon@s usualremedies of appeal, Audicial or administrative, or certiorari, if warranted, and meanwhile, we are precluding the Secretary from metingout further suspensions +ased on those remaining complaints, notwithstanding findings ofpri!a facie evidence.

"n resume the #ourt is laying down the following rules=

/. Local autonomy, under the #onstitution, involves a mere decentraliation of administration, not of power, in which local officialsremain accounta+le to the central government in the manner the law may provide2

. The new #onstitution does not prescri+e federalism2

'. The change in constitutional language (with respect to the supervision clause) was meant +ut to deny legislative control over localgovernments2 it did not e>empt the latter from legislative regulations provided regulation is consistent with the fundamental premise ofautonomy2

*. Since local governments remain accounta+le to the national authority, the latter may, +y law, and in the manner set forth therein,

impose disciplinary action against local officials2

. ESupervisionE and EinvestigationE are not inconsistent terms2 EinvestigationE does not signify EcontrolE (which the President does nothave)2

-. The petitioner, !ayor $odolfo Ganon. may serve the suspension so far ordered, +ut may no longer +e suspended for the offenseshe was charged originally2 provided=

a) that delays in the investigation of those charges Edue to his fault, neglect or repiration of, his preventive suspension, the petitioner commits anotheror other crimes and a+uses for which proper charges are filed against him +y the aggrieved party orparties, his previous suspension shall not +e a +ar to his +eing preventively suspended again, if

warranted under su+par. (), Section -' of the Local Government #ode.

;7:$:45$:, premises considered, the petitions are 3"S!"SS:3. The Temporary $estraining 5rder issued is L"4T:3. Thesuspensions of the petitioners are 644"$!:3, provided that the petitioner, !ayor $odolfo Ganon, may not +e made to serve futuresuspensions on account of any of the remaining administrative charges pending against him for acts committed prior to 6ugust //,/&00. The Secretary of "nterior is 5$3:$:3 to consolidate all such administrative cases pending against !ayor Ganon.

The si>ty9day suspension against the petitioner, !ary 6nn $ivera 6rtieda, is 644"$!:3. %o costs.

S5 5$3:$:3.

327. ganzon vs ca.doc

Documents