FACTS:

Petitioner, Prudencio C. Quimbo, was charged administratively for harassment and oppression by Elmo V. Padaon. During the pendency of the case, petitioner was placed under preventive suspension without pay. He served his preventive suspension from March 18, 1998 to June 1, 1998. After the investigation, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found petitioner guilty and recommended his suspension for eight months without pay. The Ombudsman approved the recommendation with a modification by the Court of Appeals, finding petitioner guilty of simple misconduct and suspending him for two months without pay. Petitioner filed a motion for modification/reconsideration, arguing that his period of preventive suspension should be credited towards the final penalty imposed. The Office of the Ombudsman denied the motion, stating that preventive suspension is not a penalty but a preliminary step in an investigation. The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the appellate court erred in dismissing the petitioner's plea to be considered having served the modified penalty.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court held that preventive suspension is not a penalty but a preliminary step in an investigation. It is merely a preventive measure to prevent the accused from using his position and powers to influence witnesses or tamper with records. If, after the investigation, the person is found guilty and a penalty is imposed, then it becomes the actual penalty. Preventive suspension cannot be credited as part of the actual penalty of suspension. The period of preventive suspension is not considered part of the actual penalty. The court ruled that petitioner's preventive suspension cannot be credited towards the final penalty of suspension. The court also clarified that the concept of crediting preventive suspension in criminal law does not apply to administrative law. Since the law explicitly prescribes the rules on crediting of preventive suspension, the petitioner's invocation of equity is not applicable. The court thus denied the petition.