G.R. No. 129952 June 16, 1998
GOVERNOR JOSIE CASTILLO-CO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ROBERT BARBERS, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN JESUS GUERRERO, EMILIO GONZALES, III and CONGRESSMAN JUNIE CUA, respondents.

FACTS

On June 27, 1997, Quirino Congressman Junie Cua filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Governor Josie Castillo-Co and Provincial Engineer Virgilio Ringor. The complaint alleged irregularities uncovered by a House Committee investigation in the purchase of heavy equipment by the provincial government, including that the equipment was “reconditioned” instead of “brand new” as authorized, and involved overpricing, lack of public bidding, lack of inspection, and advance payment in violation of the Local Government Code. The charges included violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and the Revised Penal Code. On July 4, 1997, a week after the complaint was filed, an Order signed by Director Emilio A. Gonzales III and approved by Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Jesus Guerrero placed Governor Castillo-Co under preventive suspension for six months. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. She then filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition, imputing grave abuse of discretion on the Deputy Ombudsman for issuing the suspension order. The Supreme Court initially issued a temporary restraining order.

ISSUE

Whether the Deputy Ombudsman committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of preventive suspension against petitioner Governor Josie Castillo-Co.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition and LIFTED the temporary restraining order. The Court held that the Deputy Ombudsman did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
1. On the authority to sign the suspension order: The Court ruled that under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 and Section 9, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman, the preventive suspension may be ordered by “the Ombudsman or his Deputy.” The use of the disjunctive “or” signifies that the Deputy Ombudsman is authorized to sign such an order; it is not required to be signed solely by the Ombudsman.
2. On the alleged denial of due process and hasty issuance: The Court held that a preventive suspension is not a penalty but a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. It can be decreed after charges are filed and even before the respondent is heard, as it is a preventive measure. The prompt issuance seven days after the complaint was consistent with the Ombudsman’s duty to prioritize complaints against high-ranking officials. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the Deputy Ombudsman and Congressman Cua stands, as petitioner provided no strong evidence to overcome it.
3. On the conditions for and duration of suspension: The Court found that the conditions under Section 24 of R.A. 6770 were met: (a) the determination that the evidence of guilt is strong is left to the discretion of the Ombudsman, and the Court found no reason to disturb this finding; and (b) the charges involved dishonesty and grave misconduct (fraud and malversation), which would warrant removal from service, and her continued stay in office could prejudice the case given her high position and potential to influence witnesses or records. The six-month suspension period is within the statutory limit and its length is also within the Ombudsman’s discretion.