QUIMBO v.

ACTING OMBUDSMAN
G.R. No. 155620
August 9, 2005
J. Carpio-Morales
Cadorna
Prudencio
Quimbo
petitioner
responden Acting Ombudsman Margarito Gervacio and Directress Mary Susan S. Guillermo of the
ts Ombudsman Office

summary Prov. Engr. placed under preventive suspension for an admin charge. Hes later
found guilty and meted the penalty of suspension. He asks court to credit his
previous service of preventive suspension to the penalty of suspension. Court
says, no, magkaiba yun (prev. sus-prelim. step to prevent prejudice in the
investigation; penalty-after finding of guilt)

facts of the case (one page digest, yo!)

Petitioner Quimbo, Provincial Engineer of Samar, was administratively charged for harassment
and oppression by a general foreman who was detailed to the Motor Provincial Engineering
Office.
During the pendency of the said administrative case before the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman, Quimbo was placed under preventive suspension without pay for a period not
exceeding 6 months. He served the same for 2 months and 17 days, upon the lift order later
issued by the Ombudsman.
Later, Quimbo was found guilty of oppression and meted the penalty of 8-month suspension
without pay. On appeal, the CA modified the Ombudsmans decision, finding Quimbo guilty of
simple misconduct only, and thereby reduced his penalty into a 2-month suspension without pay.
This decision became final.
Later, Quimbo filed a Motion for Modification/Reconsideration with the Ombudsman, claiming
that the preventive suspension which he earlier served should be credited to his 2-month
suspension under the CAs decision. In effect, Quimbo didnt want to serve any suspension
anymore.

issue

Tama ba si Quimbo HINDE.

ratio

Jurisprudence establishes a clear-cut distinction between suspension as preventive

measure and suspension as penalty. The former is merely a preventive measure to prevent
the accused in an administrative case from using his office to prejudice his prosecution, while the
latter is meted only after a finding of guilt. In fact, Secs. 24 and 25 1, Rule 14 of the Admin Code
IRR clearly state that preventive suspension is not a penalty.
Thus, service of the preventive suspension cannot be credited as service of the penalty.
Quimbos reliance in the case of Gloria v. CA, which involved the distinction between
preventive suspension pending investigation (not punitive) and preventive suspension pending
appeal (punitive) is unfounded. Here, Quimbo served the preventive suspension pending
investigation of the charges against him; hence, pursuant to Gloria, he is not entitled to
compensation for such period and cannot be deemed to have served a portion of the penalty of
suspension meted against him, because such preventive suspension is not a penalty. It is only in
case of preventive suspension pending appeal that the opposite situation could apply.
1 SEC. 24. Preventive suspension is not a punishment or penalty for misconduct in office but is considered to be a
preventive measure.
SEC. 25. The period within which a public officer or employee charged is placed under preventive suspension shall not be
considered part of the actual penalty of suspension imposed upon the employee found guilty.

Neither may the concept of crediting in criminal law apply for such is distinct in objective and
nature: preventive imprisonment involves restriction of personal liberties which is not the case
with preventive suspension.
Finally, Quimbos invocation of equity may not lie because the law on the matter is very clear.