G.R. No. 134495 December 28, 1998
Perfecto R. Yasay, Jr. vs. Honorable Ombudsman Aniano A. Desierto and The Fact-Finding and Investigation Bureau

FACTS

Petitioner Perfecto R. Yasay, Jr., then Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and President of the SEC Building Condominium Corp. (SBCC), was administratively charged before the Ombudsman. The complaint alleged that Yasay, representing the SEC and SBCC, negotiated to lease specific condominium units owned by Donsol Development & Commercial Corporation. An agreement was purportedly reached for a four-month lease at P14,000 monthly, for the exclusive use of the premises as a “display” area. The lessor vacated the premises for Yasay, who then occupied them. However, Yasay allegedly failed to execute a formal lease contract and refused to pay rentals. When demanded, he contended the area was a common area under the Condominium Act, despite the lessor holding condominium certificates of title. The Ombudsman placed Yasay under a 90-day preventive suspension. Upon the expiration of this period and while his petition for certiorari was pending before the Supreme Court, the Ombudsman issued an order extending the preventive suspension for another 90 days.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the Ombudsman had jurisdiction over the administrative case, given Yasay’s claim it involved a private intra-corporate dispute; (2) whether the Ombudsman gravely abused his discretion in giving due course to the charges and in issuing the preventive suspension order; and (3) the validity of the order extending the preventive suspension.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that the Ombudsman possesses constitutional and statutory authority to investigate any act or omission of any public official that appears illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient. The allegations—that Yasay, in his official capacity, secured possession of property, refused to honor a lease agreement, and unjustifiably withheld payment—fell squarely within this authority. The case was not a mere private dispute; it involved the conduct of a public officer in transactions related to his office. On the propriety of the preventive suspension, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion. Preventive suspension is a preliminary step, not a penalty, to prevent the accused from influencing witnesses or tampering with records. The Ombudsman’s Rules of Procedure authorize such suspension if the evidence of guilt is strong. The Court deferred to the Ombudsman’s finding that this requirement was met. Regarding the extension, the Court held it was void. The Ombudsman’s power to preventively suspend is limited to a maximum period of six months under the Ombudsman Act. However, an extension can only be granted after the expiration of the initial period if justified. Here, the extension order was issued before the first period ended, while the case was already sub judice before the Supreme Court. The Ombudsman thus acted without jurisdiction in granting the extension under those circumstances.