gazo dadole

7/26/2019 Gazo Dadole

1/3

G.R. No. 108072 December 12, 1995

HON. JUAN M. HAGAD, in his caaci!" as De#!" Omb#$sman %or !he &isa"as, petitioner,vs.HON. M'R('D') GO*O+DADO', -resi$in J#$e, /ranch &, Reiona 3ria (o#r!, Man$a#e (i!", Man$a#e (i!" Ma"or A4R'DO M. OUANO, Man$a#e (i!" &ice+Ma"or -A3'RNO (A'3' an$ Man$a#e (i!" )an#nian -an#nso$ Member RA4A' MA6O, respondents.

The determination of whether the Ombudsman under Republic Act ("R.A.") No. 6!,1otherwise nown as the Ombudsman Act of #$%$, has been divested of his authorit& to conductadministrative investi'ations over local elective officials b& virtue of the subseuent enactment of R.A. No. #6!, 2otherwise nown as the ocal *overnment +ode of #$$#, is thepivotal issue before the +ourt in this petition.

The petition sees (a) to annul the writ of preliminar& inunction, dated -# October #$$-, issued a'ainst petitioner b& respondent trial court and (b) to prohibit said court from furtherproceedin' with RT+ +ase No. /01#2.

3arentheticall&, /eput& Ombudsman for the 4isa&as Arturo oica assumed the office of 5uan a'ad, now resi'ned, who too the initiative in institutin' this special civil actionfor certiorariand prohibition.

The controvers& stemmed from the filin' of criminal and administrative complaints, on -- 5ul& #$$-, a'ainst herein respondents a&or Alfredo Ouano, 4ice1a&or 3aterno +a7ete and8an''unian' 3anlun'sod ember Rafael a&ol, all public officials of andaue +it&, b& andaue +it& +ouncilors a'no 9. /ionson and *audiosa O. 9ercede with the Office of the/eput& Ombudsman for the 4isa&as. The respondents were char'ed with havin' violated R.A. No. :!#$, as amended,5Articles #!and ##7of the Revised 3enal +ode; and R.A.No. 6#:.8+ouncilors /ionson and 9ercede averred that respondent officials, actin' in conspirac&, had caused the alteration andn their opposition, filed on #! Au'ust #$$-, /ionson and 9ercede ar'ued that the ocal *overnment +ode of #$$# could not have repealed, abro'ated or otherwise modified thepertinent provisions of the +onstitution 'rantin' to the Ombudsman the power to investi'ate cases a'ainst all public officials and that, in an& case, the power of the Ombudsman toinvesti'ate local officials under the Ombudsman Act had remained unaffected b& the provisions of the ocal *overnment +ode of #$$#.

/urin' the hearin' on the motion for preventive suspension, the parties were directed b& the /eput& Ombudsman to file their respective memoranda.

>n his memorandum, a&or Ouano reiterated that, under 8ections 6# and 6: of the ocal *overnment +ode of #$$#, the Office of the 3resident, not the Office of the Ombudsman,could lawfull& tae co'niance of administrative complaints a'ainst an& elective official of a province, a hi'hl& urbanied cit& or an independent component cit& and to imposedisciplinar& sanctions, includin' preventive suspensions, and that there was nothin' in the provision of the +onstitution 'ivin' to the Office of the Ombudsman superior powers thanthose of the 3resident over elective officials of local 'overnments.

>n an Order,9dated #! 8eptember #$$-, the Office of the /eput& Ombudsman denied the motion to dismiss and recommended the preventive suspension of respondent officials,e?cept +it& 9ud'et Officer 3edro . *uido, until the administrative case would have been finall& resolved b& the Ombudsman. 10Respondent officials were formall& placed underpreventive suspension b& the /eput& Ombudsman pursuant to an Order 11of -# 8eptember #$$-.

On -= 8eptember #$$-, a petition for prohibition, with pra&er for a writ of preliminar& inunction and temporar& restrainin' order, was filed b& respondent officials with the Re'ional Trial+ourt of andaue +it&. Actin' favorabl& on the pleas of petitionin' officials, respondent 5ud'e issued, on even date, a restrainin' order directed at petitioner, enoinin' him ". . . fromenforcin' and, of the #$% +onstitution,1thusB

8ec. #:. The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the followin' powers, functions, and dutiesB

(#) >nvesti'ate on its own, or on complaint b& an& person, an& act or omission of an& public official, emplo&ee, office or a'enc&, when such act or omissionappears to be ille'al, unust, improper, or inefficient;

while his statutor& mandate to act on administrative complaints is contained in 8ection #$ of R.A. No. 6! that readsB

8ec. #$. Administrative complaints. F The Ombudsman shall act on all complaints relatin', but not limited, to acts or omissions whichB


2/3

#. Are contrar& to law or re'ulation;-. Are unreasonable, unfair, oppressive or discriminator&;:. Are inconsistent with the 'eneral course of an a'enc&Ds functions, thou'h in accordance with law;2. 3roceed from a mistae of law or an arbitrar& ascertainment of facts;=. Are in the e?ercise of discretionar& powers but for an improper purpose; or6. Are otherwise irre'ular, immoral or devoid of

ustification.8ection -# of the same statute names the officials who could be subect to the disciplinar& authorit& of the Ombudsman, viz.B

8ec. -#. Officials 8ubect to /isciplinar& Authorit&; 0?ceptions. F The Office of the Ombudsman shall have disciplinar& authorit& over all elective andappointive officials of the *overnment and its subdivisions, instrumentalities and a'encies, includin' embers of the +abinet, local government,'overnment1owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries e?cept over officials who ma& be removed onl& b& impeachment or over embers of

+on'ress, and the 5udiciar&. (0mphasis supplied)

Taen in conunction with 8ection -2 of R.A. No. 6!, petitioner thus contends that the Office of the Ombudsman correspondin'l& has the authorit& to decree preventivesuspension on an& public officer or emplo&ee under investi'ation b& it. 8aid section of the law providesB

8ec. -2. 3reventive 8uspension. F The Ombudsman or his /eput& ma& preventivel& suspend an& officer or emplo&ee under his authorit& pendin' aninvesti'ation, if in his ud'ment, the evidence of 'uilt is stron', and (a) the char'e a'ainst such officer or emplo&ee involves dishonest&, oppression or 'ravemisconduct or ne'lect in the performance of dut&; (b) the char'es would warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondentDs continued sta& in officema& preudice the case filed a'ainst him.

The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is terminated b& the Office of the Ombudsman but not more than si? months, without pa&, e?ceptwhen the dela& in the disposition of the case b& the Office of the Ombudsman is due to the fault, ne'li'ence or petition of the respondent, in which case theperiod of such dela& shall not be counted in computin' the period of suspension herein provided.

Respondent officials, upon the other hand, ar'ue that the disciplinar& authorit& of the Ombudsman over local officials must be deemed to have been removed b& the subseuentenactment of the ocal *overnment +ode of #$$# which vests the authorit& to investi'ate administrative char'es, listed under 8ection 6! 15thereof, on various offices. >n the case

specificall& of complaints a'ainst elective officials of provinces and hi'hl& urbanied cities, the +ode statesB

8ec. 6#. @orm and @ilin' of Administrative +omplaints. F A verified complaint a'ainst an& errin' local elective officials shall be prepared as followsB

(a) A complaint a'ainst an& elective official of a province, a hi'hl& urbanied cit&, an independent component cit& or component cit& shall be filed before theOffice of the 3resident.

Thus respondents insist, conformabl& with 8ection 6: of the ocal *overnment +ode, preventive suspension can onl& be imposed b&B ". . . the 3resident if the respondentis an elective official of a province, a hi'hl& urbanied or an independent component cit&; . . . " under sub1para'raph (b) thereofB

(b) 3reventive suspension ma& be imposed at an& time after the issues are oined, when the evidence of 'uilt is stron', and 'iven the 'ravit& of the offense,there is 'reat probabilit& that the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safet& and inte'rit& of therecords and other evidence; Provided, That, an& sin'le preventive suspension of local elective officials shall not e?tend be&ond si?t& (6!)da&sB Provided, further, That in the event that several administrative cases are filed a'ainst an elective official, he cannot be preventivel& suspended formore than ninet& ($!) da&s within a sin'le &ear on the same 'round or 'rounds e?istin' and nown at the time of the first suspension.

>n his comment, which the +ourt reuired considerin' that an& final resolution of the case would be a matter of national concern, the 8olicitor1*eneral has viewed the ocal *overnment+ode of #$$# as havin' conferred, but not on an e?clusive basis, on the Office of the 3resident (and the various 8an''unians) disciplinar& authorit& over local elective officials. eposits the stand that the +ode did not withdraw the power of the Ombudsman theretofore vested under R.A. 6! conformabl& with a constitutional mandate. >n passin', the 8olicitor*eneral has also opined that the appropriate remed& that should have been pursued b& respondent officials is a petition for certiorari before this +ourt rather than their petition forprohibition filed with the Re'ional Trial +ourt.

>ndeed, there is nothin' in the ocal *overnment +ode to indicate that it has repealed, whether e?pressl& or impliedl&, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statuteson the specific matter in uestion are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to onl& uphold one and strie down the other . Cell settled is the rule that repeals oflaws b& implication are not favored, 1and that courts must 'enerall& assume their con'ruent application.17The two laws must be absolutel& incompatible, 18and a clear findin' thereofmust surface, before the inference of implied repeal ma& be drawn. 19The rule is e?pressed in the ma?im, interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., ever& statutemust be so interpreted and brou'ht into accord with other laws as to form a uniform s&stem of urisprudence. 20The fundament is that the le'islature should be presumed to have nownthe e?istin' laws on the subect and not to have enacted conflictin' statutes. 21ence, all doubts must be resolved a'ainst an& implied repeal,22and all efforts should be e?erted in orderto harmonie and 'ive effect to all laws on the subect. 2

+ertainl&, +on'ress would not have intended to do inustice to the ver& reason that underlies the creation of the Ombudsman in the #$% +onstitution which "is to insulate said officefrom the lon' tentacles of officialdom."2

Guite interestin'l&, 8ections 6# and 6: of the present ocal *overnment +ode run almost parallel with the provisions then e?istin' under the old code. 8ection 6# and 8ection 6: of theprecursor local *overnment +ode of #$%:, 25under the headin' of "8uspension and Removal," readB

8ec. 6#. @orm and @ilin' of +omplaints. F 4erified complaints a'ainst local elective officials shall be prepared as followsB

(a) A'ainst an& elective provincial or cit& official, before the inister of ocal *overnment.

8ec. 6:. 3reventive 8uspension. F (#) 3reventive suspension ma& be imposed b& the inister of ocal *overnment if the respondent is a provincial or cit&official, b& the provincial 'overnor if the respondent is an elective municipal official, or b& the cit& or municipal ma&or if the respondent is an electivebaran'a& official.

(-) 3reventive suspension ma& be imposed at an& time after the issues are oined, when there is reasonable 'round to believe that the respondent hascommitted the act or acts complained of, when the evidence of culpabilit& is stron', when the 'ravit& of the offense so warrants, or when the continuance inoffice of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safet& and inte'rit& of the records and other evidence. >n all cases, preventivesuspension shall not e?tend be&ond si?t& da&s after the start of said suspension.

(:) At the e?piration of si?t& da&s, the suspended official shall be deemed reinstated in office without preudice to the continuation of the proceedin's a'ainsthim until its termination. owever, if the dela& in the proceedin's of the case is due to his fault, ne'lect or reuest, the time of the dela& shall not be countedin computin' the time of suspension.

The authorit& to conduct administrative investi'ation and to impose preventive suspension over elective provincial or cit& officials was at that time entrusted to the inisterof ocal *overnment until it became concurrent with the Ombudsman upon the enactment of R.A. No. 6!, specificall& under 8ections -# and -2 thereof, to the e?tent ofthe common 'rant. The ocal *overnment +ode of #$$# (R.A. No. #6!), in fine, did not effect a chan'e from what alread& prevailed, the modification bein' onl& in thesubstitution of the 8ecretar& (the inister) of ocal *overnment b& the Office of the 3resident.

Respondent local officials contend that the 61month preventive suspension without pa& under 8ection -2 of the Ombudsman Act is much too repu'nant to the 6!1da& preventivesuspension provided b& 8ection 6: of the ocal *overnment +ode to even now maintain its application. The two provisions 'overn differentl&. >n order to ustif& the preventivesuspension of a public official under 8ection -2 of R.A. No. 6!, the evidence of 'uilt should be stron', and (a) the char'e a'ainst the officer or emplo&ee should involve dishonest&,oppression or 'rave misconduct or ne'lect in the performance of dut&; (b) the char'es should warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondentDs continued sta& in office wouldpreudice the case filed a'ainst him. The Ombudsman can impose the 61month preventive suspension to all public officials, whether elective or appointive, who are under investi'ation.Hpon the other hand, in imposin' the shorter period of si?t& (6!) da&s of preventive suspension prescribed in the ocal *overnment +ode of #$$# on an elective local official (at an&time after the issues are oined), it would be enou'h that (a) there is reasonable 'round to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of, (b) the evidence of

culpabilit& is stron', (c) the 'ravit& of the offense so warrants, or (d) the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safet& and inte'rit&of the records and other evidence.


3/3

Respondent officials, nevertheless, claim that petitioner committed 'rave abuse of discretion when he caused the issuance of the preventive suspension order without an& hearin'.

The contention is without merit. The records reveal that petitioner issued the order of preventive suspension after the filin' (a) b& respondent officials of their opposition on the motionfor preventive suspension and (b) b& a&or Ouano of his memorandum in compliance with the directive of petitioner. 9e that, as it ma&, we have heretofore held that, not bein' in thenature of a penalt&, a preventive suspension can be decreed on an official under investi'ation after char'es are brou'ht and even before the char'es are heard. Naturall&, suchapreventivesuspension would occur prior to an& findin' of 'uilt or innocence. >n the earl& case of Nera vs. Garcia,2reiterated in subseuent cases, 27we have saidB

>n connection with the suspension of petitioner before he could file his answer to the administrative complaint, suffice it to sa& that the suspension was not apunishment or penalt& for the acts of dishonest& and misconduct in office, but onl& as a preventive measure. 8uspension is a preliminar& step in anadministrative investi'ation. >f after such investi'ation, the char'es are established and the person investi'ated is found 'uilt& of acts warrantin' hisremoval, then he is removed or dismissed. This is the penalt&. There is, therefore, nothin' improper in suspendin' an officer pendin' his investi'ation and

before the char'es a'ainst him are heard and be 'iven an opportunit& to prove his innocence.

oreover, respondent officials were, in point of fact, put on preventive suspension onl& after petitioner had found, in consonance with our rulin' in Buenaseda vs. Flavier,28that theevidence of 'uilt was stron'. 3etitioner 'ave his ustification for the preventive suspension in this wiseB

After a careful and honest scrutin& of the evidence submitted on record, at this sta'e, it is the holdin' of this office that the evidence of 'uilt a'ainst therespondents in the instant case is stron'. There is no uestion that the char'e a'ainst the respondents involves dishonest& or 'ross misconduct which

would warrant their removal from the service and there is no 'ainsa&in' the fact that the char'e for falsification of veritable documents lie cit& ordinancesare ver& serious char'es that affect the ver& foundations of dul& established representative 'overnments. @inall&, it is liewise the holdin' of this office atthis sta'e that the continued sta& in office of respondents ma& preudice the udicious investi'ation and resolution of the instant case.29

@inall&, it does appear, as so pointed out b& the 8olicitor *eneral, that respondent officialDs petition for prohibition, bein' an application for remed& a'ainst the findin's of petitionercontained in his -# 8eptember #$$- order, should not have been entertained b& the trial court. The proscription in 8ection #2 of R.A. No. 6! readsB

8ec. #2. Restrictions. F No writ of inunction shall be issued b& an& court to dela& an investi'ation bein' conducted b& the Ombudsman under this Act,unless there is aprima facieevidence that the subect matter of the investi'ation is outside the urisdiction of the Office of the Ombudsman.

No court shall hear an& appeal or application for remed& a'ainst the decision or findin's of the Ombudsman, e?cept the 8upreme +ourt, on pure uestionof law.

iewise noteworth& is 8ection - of the law which prescribes a direct recourse to this +ourt on matters involvin' orders arisin' from administrative disciplinar& casesori'inatin' from the Office of the Ombudsman; thusB

8ec. -. 0ffectivit& and @inalit& of /ecisions. F . . .

>n all administrative disciplinar& cases, orders, directives, or decisions of the Office of the Ombudsman ma& be appealed to the 8upreme +ourt b& filin' apetition for certiorariwithin ten (#!) da&s from receipt of the written notice of the order, directive or decision or denial of the motion for reconsideration inaccordance with Rule 2= of the Rules of +ourt. (0mphasis supplied)

All told, petitioner is plainl& entitled to the relief pra&ed for, and we must, accordin'l&; 'rant the petition.

C0R0@OR0, the uestioned writ of preliminar& inunction of -# October #$$- is ANNH0/ and 80T A8>/0, and RT+ +ase No. /01#2 is hereb& ordered />8>880/. No costs.

8O OR/0R0/.

Haa$ :. Go;o+Da$oe

4ac!s

gazo dadole

Documents