G.R. No. 177135 October 15, 2008
ARTURO O. RADAZA, JULITO H. CUIZON, FERNANDO T. TAGA-AN, JR., and ROGELIO D. VELOSO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SPECIAL NINETEENTH (19th) DIVISION, OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS GUTIERREZ, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN VIRGINIA PALANCA-SANTIAGO, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DILG), NORMA R. PATALINGJUG and CRISOLOGO SAAVEDRA, respondents.

FACTS

The case arose from the preparations for the 12th ASEAN Summit held in Cebu in January 2007. Cause-oriented groups and a project manager, Crisologo Saavedra, filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas) alleging anomalous overpricing in the procurement and installation of decorative lamp posts and streetlights along the ceremonial routes in the cities of Cebu, Mandaue, and Lapu-Lapu. An investigation by the Public Assistance and Corruption Prevention Office (PACPO) concluded there was prima facie evidence of overpricing, resulting from collusion between the contractors (Gampik Construction and Fabmik Construction) and public officials, including petitioners Lapu-Lapu City Mayor Arturo O. Radaza and City Engineers Julito H. Cuizon, Fernando T. Taga-an, Jr., and Rogelio D. Veloso. The PACPO Report found that the costs in the Program of Works and Estimates (POWE) prepared by the cities were up to ten times higher than the prices from suppliers. Consequently, an administrative complaint for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct was filed against the petitioners. On March 29, 2007, Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez issued an Order placing the petitioners under preventive suspension for six months pending investigation, citing the Final Evaluation Report as strong evidence of guilt and the flagrant nature of the acts. Without seeking reconsideration, petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on April 2, 2007, praying for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). The Court of Appeals denied the prayer for a TRO on the same day. The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) implemented the preventive suspension order against Mayor Radaza on April 3, 2007, and against the city engineers on April 4, 2007. Petitioners then filed the instant Petition for Certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioners’ prayer for a Temporary Restraining Order to enjoin the implementation of the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying the TRO. The Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order was issued in accordance with its constitutional and statutory powers under the Ombudsman Act ( R.A. No. 6770 ). The Court found that the Ombudsman did not act with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the suspension order, as the PACPO Final Evaluation Report constituted sufficient basis to form a belief that the evidence of guilt was strong, which is the standard for preventive suspension in administrative cases. The Court also noted that petitioners failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing a motion for reconsideration with the Ombudsman before resorting to certiorari. Furthermore, the Court found the petition moot and academic because the six-month preventive suspension period had already ended (the suspension began on April 4, 2007, and ended on October 1, 2007), and the act sought to be restrained had been fully implemented. The Court emphasized that preventive suspension is not a penalty but a preliminary step in an administrative investigation, and the Ombudsman has broad discretion to impose it when the evidence of guilt is strong and the charges involve dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty.