G.R. No. 177211 March 13, 2009
Office of the Ombudsman, Petitioner, vs. Ricardo Evangelista, Concepcion Melican, Grace Limos and the Hon. Court of Appeals (Sixteenth Division), Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Ricardo Evangelista (Mayor), Concepcion Melican (Municipal Treasurer), and Grace Limos (Municipal Accountant) of Aguilar, Pangasinan, were accused by Priscilla Villanueva, Co-Chair of the Local School Board, in an affidavit-complaint dated November 13, 2006. The complaint alleged that the respondents misappropriated the Special Education Fund (SEF) by using it to purchase speech kit tapes and textbooks without the approval of the Local School Board. Certifications from principals and head teachers were attached, stating that their schools did not receive the said items. Villanueva specifically requested the preventive suspension of the respondents.
In an Order dated January 9, 2007, the Office of the Ombudsman placed the respondents under preventive suspension for four (4) months without pay, pursuant to Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770 . The Ombudsman found strong evidence of guilt, that the charges involved dishonesty and grave misconduct, and that the respondents’ continued stay in office could prejudice the case. The order was served on Evangelista on January 13, 2007, and on Limos on January 15, 2007.
On January 17, 2007, the respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, assailing the suspension order. They argued they were denied due process as they were not furnished a copy of the complaint, that the allegations were unsubstantiated, and that the order was hastily issued. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and set aside the Ombudsman’s order, finding non-compliance with Section 26(2) of R.A. No. 6770 (requiring the accused to be informed of the charges) and noting that the relevant documents were in the custody of the Commission on Audit, beyond the respondents’ reach for tampering.
The Office of the Ombudsman filed the present petition, arguing the appellate court erred in reversing the suspension order. The respondents, in defense, reiterated their due process claim, asserted the allegations were baseless, and contended that the re-election of Mayor Evangelista rendered the suspension order moot and academic.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the preventive suspension order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman against the respondents.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, thereby reinstating the preventive suspension order issued by the Office of the Ombudsman.
The Supreme Court held that the preventive suspension order was validly issued in accordance with Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770 . The law does not require prior notice or hearing before the issuance of a preventive suspension order. The two requisites under Section 24 were satisfied: (1) the Ombudsman’s judgment that the evidence of guilt was strong, and (2) the charges involved dishonesty, oppression, grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of duty (or that the charge would warrant removal, or the respondent’s continued stay would prejudice the case).
The Court found no grave abuse of discretion in the Ombudsman’s finding of strong evidence, which was based on documents including a Local Budget Preparation Form, municipal accounting records, a letter from the complainant, a status of appropriation report, an SEF statement of income and expenses, a letter from the municipal accountant listing disbursements, and certifications from school principals and head teachers denying receipt of the speech kits and textbooks. These documents indicated a significant, unexplained reduction in the SEF balance and disbursements made without Local School Board authorization.
The Court rejected the appellate court’s reliance on Section 26(2) of R.A. No. 6770 , as the requirements for preventive suspension are specifically governed by Section 24. The Court also found the respondents’ claim of mootness due to re-election unmeritorious, as the doctrine in Garcia v. Mojica applies to preventively suspended elective officials, and here, the suspension order covered not only the elective mayor but also the appointive treasurer and accountant. Furthermore, the Court noted that the issue of mootness was not raised before the Court of Appeals.
On a procedural note, the Court treated the Ombudsman’s petition for certiorari (Rule 65) as a petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) to serve the interests of justice, as it was filed within the 15-day period prescribed under Rule 45.