G.R. No. 178000 and 178003, December 4, 2009
LIBERATO M. CARABEO, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, OMBUDSMAN SIMEON B. MARCELO, ASSISTANT OMBUDSMAN PAMO PELAGIO S. APOSTOL, MARGARITO TEVES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF FINANCE, AND TROY FRANCIS C. PIZARRO, JOEL APOLONIO, REYNALITO L. LAZARO, ISMAEL LEONOR, AND MELCHOR PIOL, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE PANEL OF INVESTIGATORS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-REVENUE INTEGRITY PROTECTION SERVICE, Respondents.

FACTS

On 8 July 2005, the Department of Finance-Revenue Integrity Protection Service (DOF-RIPS) filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman against Liberato M. Carabeo, Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Treasurer of Parañaque City. The complaint alleged that Carabeo’s net worth ballooned from ₱114,900 in 1981 to approximately ₱7.5 million in 2004, accompanied by acquisitions of numerous real properties (lots in Tagaytay City, a townhouse in Cavite, and parcels of land in Laguna) and expensive vehicles (including a Ford F150 and Honda CRV). It further alleged that Carabeo failed to declare most of these vehicles and a Tagaytay property in his Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALNs), in violation of anti-graft laws. The DOF-RIPS also noted Carabeo’s purchase of a share in an exclusive country club and frequent foreign travels. The Ombudsman, upon recommendation, issued an order dated 26 July 2005 directing Secretary of Finance Margarito Teves to place Carabeo under preventive suspension and to file his counter-affidavit. Carabeo filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 91607) challenging the preventive suspension. The CA issued a 60-day Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). Subsequently, Secretary Teves issued an order detailing Carabeo to the DOF’s Bureau of Local Government Finance. Carabeo filed another petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 92313), alleging the detail violated the TRO and praying for contempt charges against Secretary Teves. The CA consolidated the petitions and eventually dismissed them in a Joint Decision dated 31 October 2006, which also denied the contempt charge. Carabeo’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in: (1) ruling that the failure to provide implementing rules of Executive Order No. 259 does not render it unenforceable; (2) sustaining the preventive suspension imposed by the Ombudsman on Carabeo; and (3) not considering the complaint against Carabeo a violation of Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6713 which entitles him to be informed beforehand and to take corrective action.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the first issue, the Court found the question on EO 259’s enforceability immaterial to the validity of the charges against Carabeo, as the lack of implementing rules does not affect the Ombudsman’s authority to investigate. On the second issue, the Court upheld the preventive suspension, ruling that under Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act), the Ombudsman may preventively suspend any officer under his authority pending an investigation if the evidence of guilt is strong, the charge involves dishonesty or grave misconduct, and the continued stay in office may prejudice the case. The Court found that the Ombudsman’s order was based on a review of factual findings, and prior notice and hearing are not required for preventive suspension as it is not a penalty but a measure to ensure an impartial investigation. On the third issue, the Court ruled that Section 10 of RA 6713, which provides for the right to be informed of charges and to take corrective action, applies to administrative disciplinary cases but does not apply to criminal or non-administrative cases like the forfeiture proceedings contemplated under Republic Act No. 1379. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion.