Hagad v.

Gozo-Dadole
Full Text: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/dec1995/gr_108072_1995.html
Facts:
On July 22, 1992, criminal and administrative complaints were filed against Mayor
Ouano, Vice Mayor Canete and Councilor Mayol, all public officials of Mandaue City by
Councilors Dionson, Baricede. There respondents were charged with having violated
R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), as amended,Articles 170
(falsification of legislative documents) and 171 (falsification by public officers) of the
Revised Penal Code; and R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of
Public Officers). The respondent officials were allegedly causing alteration of Ordinance
No. 018/92 by increasing the allotted appropriation from P3.5M to P7M without authority
from Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue.
The respondent 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 filed against them since, under Section 63 of the Local Government
Code of 1991, the power to investigate and impose administrative sanctions against
said local officials, as well as to effect their preventive suspension, had now been
vested with the Office of the President. On September 1992, a TRO against Hagad was
filed and granted to the petitioners by RTC Mandaue to restrain him from enforcing
suspension.
Issue:
Whether or not the Ombudsman under RA 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1898) has been
divested of his authority to conduct administrative investigations over local elective
official by virtue of subsequent enactment of RA 7160.
Held:
No. The authority of the Ombudsman over local officials pursuant to RA 6770 is not
removed by LG Code of 1991.
There is nothing in the Local Government Code to indicate that it has repealed, whether
expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statutes
on the specific matter in question are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to
compel us to only uphold one and strike down the other . Well settled is the rule that
repeals of laws by implication are not favored, 16 and that courts must generally
assume their congruent application. The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and
a clear finding thereof must surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be
drawn. The rule is expressed in the maxim, interpretare et concordare legibus est
optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so interpreted and brought into accord
with other laws as to form a uniform system of jurisprudence. The fundament is that the
legislature should be presumed to have known the existing laws on the subject and not

to have enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, all doubts must be resolved against any
implied repeal, and all efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to
all laws on the subject.
The authority to conduct administrative investigation and to impose preventive
suspension over elective provincial or city officials was at that time entrusted to the
Minister of Local Government until it became concurrent with the Ombudsman upon the
enactment of R.A. No. 6770, specifically under Sections 21 and 24 thereof, to the extent
of the common grant. The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), in fine, did
not effect a change from what already prevailed, the modification being only in the
substitution of the Secretary (the Minister) of Local Government by the Office of the
President.