GR 138464; (January, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 138464 ; January 18, 2008
HON. GOVERNOR DEMOCRITO O. PLAZA, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, GIL POL TAN, ELISA O. GILSANO, and EMMANUEL S. QUISMUNDO, respondents.
FACTS
In 1992, Governor Democrito O. Plaza of Agusan del Sur received administrative complaints against three provincial appointive officials: Budget Officer Gil Pol Tan, Planning Coordinator Emmanuel Quismundo, and Accountant Elisa Gilsano. The charges included violations of COA circulars, technical malversation, and neglect of duty. The Governor created a Provincial Investigating Committee (PIC) pursuant to the Local Government Code. The respondents filed motions to inhibit the committee chair, Atty. Danilo Samson, questioning the validity of his appointment and alleging bias. The PIC denied the motions. Subsequently, Governor Plaza issued orders preventively suspending the respondents for 60 days pending investigation.
The respondents challenged their suspension via a petition for certiorari before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC dismissed their petition and upheld the suspension. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. The CA ruled that the PIC was illegally constituted because Atty. Samson’s appointment lacked the required concurrence of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, rendering all its proceedings void. The CA ordered the reinstatement of the respondents with payment of backwages, but allowed the continuation of administrative proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the Provincial Investigating Committee illegally constituted and in awarding backwages to the preventively suspended officials.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court held that the legality of the committee’s constitution is irrelevant to the validity of the preventive suspension order. The power to preventively suspend is a distinct and direct authority granted to the local chief executive under Section 63 of the Local Government Code. This power is not dependent on the existence or validity of an investigating committee. The Governor acted within his statutory authority in issuing the suspension orders, as the charges involved alleged dishonesty and neglect of duty, which are grounds for preventive suspension under the law.
Consequently, the preventive suspension was valid and justified. The award of backwages was therefore deleted. An employee under a valid preventive suspension is not entitled to back salaries unless he is exonerated and the suspension is found to be unjustified. The Court directed the PIC to reconvene and proceed with the administrative cases with dispatch, noting that any defect in the committee’s composition could be rectified, and the proceedings could continue from the stage prior to the issuance of the suspension orders. The suspension is a precautionary measure, not a penalty, justified by the need to ensure an unhampered investigation.