View full case

GOVERNOR JOSIE CASTILLO-CO v. ROBERT BARBERS

FACTS:

Quirino Governor Josie Castillo-Co and Provincial Engineer Virgilio Ringor were accused by Quirino Congressman Junie Cua of various irregularities in the purchase of heavy equipment. Congressman Cua alleged that the equipment purchased was "reconditioned" instead of "brand new" as required by resolutions of the province's Sanggunian. Other irregularities claimed included overpricing, lack of public bidding, lack of inspection, advance payment prior to delivery in violation of the Local Government Code, and an attempt to cover up such irregularities. On July 4, 1997, Governor Castillo-Co and Provincial Engineer Ringor were placed under preventive suspension for six months by order of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. They filed separate motions for reconsideration, which were both denied. Governor Castillo-Co then filed a petition seeking to nullify the order of preventive suspension, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Deputy Ombudsman. The court granted a temporary restraining order. Governor Castillo-Co argued that only the Ombudsman, and not his Deputy, had the authority to sign the order of preventive suspension for officials with a salary grade of 27 or above. However, there is no provision in the relevant laws that suggests such limitation. The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee if the evidence of guilt is strong and the charge involves dishonesty, oppression, gross misconduct, neglect of duty, or would warrant removal from service or prejudice the case against the respondent. The period of preventive suspension shall not exceed six months, unless the delay in the case disposition is due to the fault or negligence of the respondent.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Deputy Ombudsman is authorized to sign the order of preventive suspension against officials with a salary grade of 27 or above.

  2. Whether the issuance of the order of preventive suspension was hasty, selective, and deprived the petitioner of due process.

  3. Whether the conditions required to sustain the petitioner's preventive suspension have been met and if the duration thereof is excessive.

RULING:

  1. The Deputy Ombudsman is authorized to sign the order of preventive suspension against officials with a salary grade of 27 or above. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 7975 that suggests that only the Ombudsman, and not his Deputy, may sign such an order.

  2. The issuance of the order of preventive suspension was not hasty, selective, and did not deprive the petitioner of due process.

  3. The conditions required to sustain the petitioner's preventive suspension have been met and the duration thereof is not excessive, as it is within the allowable period of not more than six months.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The Ombudsman or his Deputy may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation if the evidence of guilt is strong and the charge involves dishonesty, oppression, gross misconduct, neglect in the performance of duty, or would warrant removal from the service.

  • The duration of preventive suspension shall not exceed six months, without pay, unless the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault, negligence, or petition of the respondent.

  • The Deputy Ombudsman is authorized to sign the order of preventive suspension against officials with a salary grade of 27 or above.