G.R. No. 93252 , 93746, 95245 November 8, 1991
RODOLFO T. GANZON and MARY ANN RIVERA ARTIEDA, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, LUIS T. SANTOS, as Secretary of the Department of Local Government, NICANOR M. PATRICIO, and SALVADOR CABALUNA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rodolfo T. Ganzon, the elected Mayor of Iloilo City, was the subject of multiple administrative complaints. The Secretary of Local Government, respondent Luis T. Santos, issued against him three separate 60-day preventive suspension orders dated August 11, 1988, October 11, 1988, and May 3, 1990. Ganzon challenged these orders. In a main decision dated August 5, 1991, this Court upheld the validity of the suspension orders but ruled that Ganzon “may not be made to serve future suspensions on account of any of the remaining administrative charges pending against him for acts committed prior to August 11, 1988.”
Following this decision, a dispute arose regarding its execution. Respondent Santos issued a memorandum on August 29, 1991, deeming the third suspension order (dated May 3, 1990) to be in force. Ganzon contended he had already served this suspension from June 11 to June 30, 1990, before this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on June 26, 1990. He filed a petition with the Court of Appeals, which issued a TRO on September 3, 1991, enjoining Santos’s memorandum. In response, this Court issued its own TRO on September 5, 1991, directing the Court of Appeals to cease implementing its TRO.

ISSUE

Whether Mayor Rodolfo T. Ganzon had already completed service of his third 60-day preventive suspension order dated May 3, 1990, prior to the Court’s main decision of August 5, 1991.

RULING

Yes, Ganzon had already served the full term of his third suspension. The Court meticulously computed the period. The third order was to be served for 60 days effective immediately from May 3, 1990. Ganzon began serving it on May 4, 1990 (the first day being excluded). He served from May 4 to June 10, 1990, and then again from June 11 to June 30, 1990, when this Court’s TRO took effect. The total days served amounted to 59 days. Crucially, the Court’s TRO of June 26, 1990, was a judicial restraint that tolled the running of the suspension period. When the main decision of August 5, 1991, lifted that TRO, the suspension period resumed. The one remaining day to complete the 60-day term was deemed served on August 5, 1991, the very day the TRO was lifted and the decision affirming the suspension became final. Therefore, no further service of that third suspension order was permissible. Respondent Santos’s August 29, 1991, memorandum attempting to reactivate it was invalid, as it contravened the final and executory main decision which had the effect of fully extinguishing that specific penalty.