Hagad v. Gozo-Dadole December 12, 1995 | J.

Vitug Facts: Criminal and administrative complaints were filed against Mayor Ouano, Vice-Mayor Canete and Mayol with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visaayas by Mandaue City Councilors Dionson and Bercede charged with RA 3019, violation of RPC 170 (falsification of legislative documents) and 171(falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister) They allegedly altered/falsified Ordinance No. 018/92 by increasing the allocated appropriation from P3.4M to P7M without authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue Deputy Ombudsman Hagad ordered the accused to submit their counter-affidavits while complainants moved for the preventive suspension of respondent officials Officials prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the Ombudsman supposedly was bereft of jurisdiction to try, hear and decide the administrative case since under Sec 63 of the LGC, the power to investigate and impose administrative sanctions against local officials, as well as to effect their preventive suspension, had now been vested with the Office of the President Dionson and Bercede argues that the LGC couldnt have repealed the provisions of the Constitution and that the power of the Ombudsman to investigate local officials under the Ombudsman Act had remained unaffected by the provisions of the LGC Office of the Deputy Ombudsman denied the MD and recommended the preventive suspension A petition for prohibition with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO was filed and granted by the RTC of Mandaue. RTC held that the jurisdiction now to conduct administrative investigation against local elective officials is alreadly lodged before the offices concerned under Sec 61 of LGC Issue: WON the Ombudsman under RA 6770 has been divested of his authority to conduct administrative investigations over local elective officials by virtue of the subsequent enactment of the LGC (NO) Ruling: The general investigatory power of the Ombudsman is seen in Art. XI, Sec 13(1) of the Consti investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official... Sec 19 directs the ombudsman to act on all complaints related to the enumeration provided. Sec 21 gives the Ombudsman the disciplinary authority over all elective and appointive officials of the government including the local government SC says that there is nothing in the LGC indicating that it has repealed, expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The 2 statutes are not so inconsistent or irreconcilable The 2 provisions (Sec 24 of the Ombudsman Act and Sec 63 of LGC) govern differently o To justify preventive suspension in Sec 24 of the Ombudsman Act can impose 6 month preventive suspension the charge against the employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty the charges would warrant removal from the service continued stay in the office may prejudice the case filed o In imposing the shorter 60 days of preventive suspension under the LGC, enough that: there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained of the evidence of culpability is strong the gravity of the offence so warrants or the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence SC says there is no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the petitioner Suspension is not in the nature of a penalty but only a preventive measure Judgment: Petition granted. Preliminary injunction annulled and set aside.