[314SCRA207.

September10,1999]

MAYORALVINB.GARCIA,petitioner

vs.

HON.ARTUROC.MOJICA,inhiscapacityasDeputyOmbudsmanforthe
Visayas,VIRGINIAPALANCASANTIAGO,inhiscapacityasDirector,
OfficeoftheOmbudsman(Visayas),ALANFRANCISCOS.GARCIANO,
inhiscapacityasGraftInvestigationOfficerI,OfficeoftheOmbudsman
(Visayas),andJESUSRODRIGOT.TAGAAN,respondents.

QUISUMBING,J.:

FACTS:

OnMay7,1998,petitionerAlvinGarcia,inhiscapacityasCebuCitymayor,signed
acontractwithF.E.Zuelligforthesupplyofasphalttothecity.Thecontractcoversthe
period19982001,whichperiodwastocommenceonSeptember1998whenthefirst
deliveryshouldhavebeenmadebyF.E.Zuellig.

SometimeinMarch1999,newsreportscameoutregardingtheallegedanomalous
purchase of asphalt by Cebu City, through the contract signed by petitioner.This
promptedtheOfficeoftheOmbudsman(Visayas)toconductaninquiryintothematter.

RespondentJesusRodrigoT.Tagaan,specialprosecutionofficeroftheOfficeofthe
Ombudsman, was assigned to conduct the inquiry and after the investigation, he
recommended that the said inquiry be upgraded tocriminalandadministrativecases
againstpetitionerandtheothercityofficialsinvolved.

RespondentArturoC.Mojica,DeputyOmbudsmanfortheVisayas,approvedthis
recommendation and issued a preventive suspension as recommended by respondent
AllanGarciano

Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsiderationofsaidorderwhichmotionwasdenied.
PetitionerisnowbeforethisCourtassailingthevalidityofsaidorder,andcontending
thatthe:

respondents acted with grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or

excessofjurisdictioninassumingjurisdictionoverthecaseandissuingthe
preventivesuspensionorder,consideringthattheallegedactconstitutingthe
chargeagainstthepetitionerwascommittedduringhispreviousterm,and
petitionerhavingbeenreelectedtothesameposition

preventive suspension was in violation of the Local Government Code

whichallowssuspensiononlyaftertheissueshavejoined,andshouldonly
lastfornotmorethan60days.
 preventivesuspensionwasinviolationofOmbudsmanLaw

ISSUES:

1. WhetherornottheDeputyOmbudsmancommittedagraveabuseofdiscretionwhen
hesettheperiodofpreventivesuspensionatsixmonths

2. Whether or not the preventive suspension violated the Local Government Code,
whichallowssuspensiononlyaftertheissueshavejoined,andshouldonlylastfor
notmorethan60days.

3. Whetherornotalocalelectiveofficialmaybepreventivelysuspendedevenbefore
theissuescouldbejoined

4. Whether or not a reelected local official can still be held administratively

accountableformisconductcommittedduringhispriortermofoffice?

HELD:

1. WhetherornottheDeputyOmbudsmancommittedagraveabuseofdiscretion
whenhesettheperiodofpreventivesuspensionatsixmonths

YES. Preventivesuspension,underSection24ofR.A.6770,maybeimposed
when,amongotherfactors,theevidenceofguiltisstrong.Theperiodofwhichan
officialmaybepreventivelysuspendedmustnotexceedsixmonths.Thediscretion
asregardstheperiodofsuchsuspensionbelongstotheOmbudsmanexceptthathe
cannotextendtheperiodofsuspensionbeyondthatprovidedbylaw.

Butwheretheevidenceagainstapublicofficialisalreadystrongafterdocuments
wereobtainedfollowinghissuspension,thepurposeofthepreventivesuspension,
which is to enable the investigating authority to gather documents without
interventionfromthepublicofficial,hasalreadybeenachieved,andthemaximum
sixmonthperiodpreventivesuspensionwouldbeexcessiveanddefinitelylonger
thannecessaryfortheOmbudsmantomakeitslegitimatecase.

The Solicitor General stated during his oral argument at the hearing that the
documentsmentionedinrespondentscomment(suchaspurchaseorders,purchase
requests,anddisbursementvouchers),documentsthatshowpetitionersguilt,were
obtainedafterpetitioner had been suspended.He claimed theystrengthenthe
evidence of respondents against petitioner.If the purpose of the preventive
suspensionwastoenabletheinvestigatingauthoritytogatherdocumentswithout
intervention from petitioner, then, from respondents submission, we can only
conclude that this purpose was already achieved, during the nearly monthlong
suspensionofpetitionerfromJune25toJuly19,1999. Themaximumsixmonth
periodisexcessiveanddefinitelylongerthannecessaryfortheOmbudsmantomake
itslegitimatecaseagainstpetitioner.Wemustconcludethattheperiodduringwhich
petitionerwas already preventively suspended,has been sufficient forthe lawful
 purposeofpreventingpetitionerfromhidinganddestroyingneededdocuments,or
harassingandpreventingwitnesseswhowishtoappearagainsthim.

2. WhetherornotthepreventivesuspensionviolatedtheLocalGovernmentCode,
whichallowssuspensiononlyaftertheissueshavejoined,andshouldonlylast
fornotmorethan60days.

NO. Administrative complaints commenced under the Ombudsman Law are

distinctfromthoseinitiatedundertheLocalGovernmentCode.Theshorterperiodof
suspension under the Local Government Code is intended to limit the period of
suspensionthatmaybeimposedbyamayor,agovernororthePresident,whomay
bemotivatedbypartisanpoliticalconsiderationswhile,incontrast,theOmbudsman,
who can impose a longer period of preventive suspension, is not likely to be
similarlymotivatedbecauseitisaconstitutionalbody.

Moreover,theOmbudsmanhasnotbeenstrippedofhispowertoinvestigatelocal
electiveofficialsbyvirtueoftheLocalGovernmentCodesincethereisnothingin
theLocalGovernmentCodetoindicatethatithasrepealed,whetherexpresslyor
impliedly,thepertinentprovisionsoftheOmbudsmanAct.Thetwostatutesonthe
specificmatter inquestion arenot soinconsistent,letaloneirreconcilable, as to
compeltheCourttoonlyupholdoneandstrikedowntheother.

3. Whether ornotalocalelectiveofficialmaybepreventively suspended even

beforetheissuescouldbejoined

YES.Therecouldbepreventivesuspensionevenbeforethechargesagainstthe
official are heard, or before the official is given an opportunity to prove his
innocence.Preventivesuspensionismerelyapreliminarystepinanadministrative
investigationandisnotinanywaythefinaldeterminationoftheguiltoftheofficial
concerned.

Therequirementthattheofficialconcernedmustbegiven72hourstoanswerthe
chargesagainsthimbeforefurtherinvestigation,asprovidedbySection26ofR.A.
6770, does not make invalid the preventive suspension order issued against the
petitioner.

Moreover, respondents state that petitioner was given 10 days to submit his
counteraffidavittothecomplaintfiledbyrespondentTagaan.This10dayperiodis
in keeping with Section 5(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman.

4. Whether or not a reelected local official can still be held administratively

accountableformisconductcommittedduringhispriortermofoffice?
 NO. Areelectedlocalofficialmaynotbeheldadministrativelyaccountablefor
misconductcommittedduringhispriortermofoffice.Therationaleforthisholding
isthatwhentheelectorateputhimbackintooffice,itispresumedthatitdidsowith
fullknowledgeofhislifeandcharacter,includinghispastmisconduct.If,armed
with such knowledge, it still reelects him, then such reelection is considered a
condonationofhispastmisdeeds.

Petitionercannotanymorebeheldadministrativelyliableforanactdoneduring
hispreviousterm,thatis,hissigningofthecontractwithF.E.Zuellig.However,
whilepetitionercannolongerbeheldadministrativelyliableforsigningthecontract
with F. E. Zuellig, this should not prejudice the filing of any case other than
administrativeagainstpetitioner.Therulinginthiscase,maynotbetakentomean
thetotalexonerationofpetitionerforwhateverwrongdoing,ifany,mighthavebeen
committedinsigningthesubjectcontract.

GARCIAv.MOJICA
314SCRA207
September10,1999
(CaseDigest)
 Submittedby:
DELACRUZ,JANELLECARYNA.
L150515
2G

Submittedto:
ATTY.EDWINR.SANDOVAL
AdministrativeLaw