You are on page 1of 2

HAGAD VS.

GOZO-DADOLE (1995)
Facts:
Mandaue City Councilors Dionson and Bercede filed administrative complaints with the Office
of the Deputy Ombudsman for Visayas against Mayor Ouano, Vice Mayor Canete and Sangguniang
Panlungsod Member Mayol, for having conspired to falsify Ordinance 018/92 to increase the allocated
appropriation from 3.4M to 7M. The councilors moved for the preventive suspension of the said
officials. Aside from opposing the motions, the said officials also moved to dismiss the case on the
ground that the Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. They averred that Section 63 of
the LGC vested the power to investigate and discipline local officials (of provinces/highly urbanized
cities/independent component cities) with the Office of the President.
The Ombudsman denied the motion to dismiss and placed the officials under preventive
suspension. The officials filed for a writ of preliminary injunction and TRO with the RTC. Respondent
judge ruled in favor of the officials, enjoining the enforcement of the preventive suspension, hence this
petition.
Issue: Whether the Ombudsman under Ombudsman Act of 1989 has been divested of his authority to
conduct administrative investigations over local elective officials by virtue LGC of 1991?
NO
Ratio:
1. The LCG did not repeal the Ombudsman Act.
SC agreed with the SolGen that there is nothing in th LGC to indicate that it has repealed the
provisions of the Ombudsman Act. Repeal of laws by implication are not favored, unless the two laws
are absolutely incompatible.
In the old LGC of 1983, 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. With the passage of the Ombudsman Act of 1989, the Ombudsman was vested
with concurrent authority. Since Sections 61 & 63 of the new LGC were adopted from the old LGC,
except for the substitution of the Minister of of Local Government by the Office of the President,
no other change was effected except for such substitution.
2. The 6-month preventive suspension without pay under Section 24 of the Ombudsman Act
is not repugnant to the 60-day preventive suspension provided by Section 63 of the LGC.
The two laws govern differently.
The 6-month preventive suspension under Section 24 of the Ombudsman Act may be imposed on all
public officials, whether elective or appointive and to justify it, the evidence of guilt should be strong,
and
a. the charge against the officer or employee should involve dishonesty, oppression or grave
misconduct or neglect in the performance of duty
b. the charges should warrant removal from the service; or

c. the respondent's continued stay in office would prejudice the case filed against him
On the other hand, to justify the imposition of the 60-day preventive suspension under Section 63 of
LCG of 1991 on an elective local official, it would be enough that the issues have been joined and
a. there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts complained
of,
b. the evidence of culpability is strong,
c. the gravity of the offense so warrants, or
d. 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.
3. Hearing is not a requirement before preventive suspension is imposed.
In this case, the Ombudsman imposed the preventive suspension after the officials filed their opposition
and Mayor Ouano filed his memorandum. Being a preventive measure merely aimed to aid to the
investigation and not to serve as penalty, there is no need for a finding of guilt before it can be imposed.
The charges being of very serious nature, it was within the Ombudsman's judgment to determine of the
imposition was proper.
4. The RTC had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for remedy.
Section 14 of the Ombudsman Act provides that no court shall hear any appeal or application for
remedy against the decision or findings of the Ombudsman, except the Supreme Court, on pure
question of law.
Oder of the RTC ANNULLED.

You might also like