Scribd
Upload
98 views2 pages

Plaza V CA

This case involves the preventive suspension of three employees - Tan, Gilsano, and Quismundo - by the Governor of Agusan del Sur, Democrito Plaza. Plaza created an investigating committee chaired by Danilo Samson to look into administrative complaints against the employees. Samson issued an order denying the employees' request to dismiss him from the committee. Plaza then issued orders preventively suspending the employees for 60 days. The Court of Appeals found that Samson's authority was valid and the preventive suspensions were allowed under the law even without a hearing. The employees were not entitled to back wages as their suspensions were authorized and not shown to be unjustified.

Uploaded by

Maddie Bautista
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
98 views2 pages

Plaza V CA

This case involves the preventive suspension of three employees - Tan, Gilsano, and Quismundo - by the Governor of Agusan del Sur, Democrito Plaza. Plaza created an investigating committee chaired by Danilo Samson to look into administrative complaints against the employees. Samson issued an order denying the employees' request to dismiss him from the committee. Plaza then issued orders preventively suspending the employees for 60 days. The Court of Appeals found that Samson's authority was valid and the preventive suspensions were allowed under the law even without a hearing. The employees were not entitled to back wages as their suspensions were authorized and not shown to be unjustified.

Uploaded by

Maddie Bautista
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Plaza v CA

A few months after his assumption as Governor of Agusan del Sur in 1992, petitioner Democrito O. Plaza
received separate administrative complaints against the following:

Tan for allegedly committed a conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, 8
 Gilsano was charged with neglect in the performance of duty, 9 and
Quismundo was allegedly liable for technical malversation, an act prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.

Pursuant to Book I, Title Three, Section 86 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7160, otherwise known as the
Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991, Plaza issued Executive Order No. 01, Series of 1992, 6 creating a
Provincial Investigating Committee (PIC) composed of the following petitioners:

Chairperson - Atty. Danilo Samson


Provincial Legal Officer

On various dates in October 1992, petitioner Samson, acting as Chairperson of the Administrative
Investigating Committee, notified private respondents of the administrative complaints. Private
respondents were required to answer in writing under oath within 72 hours from receipt together with the
affidavits of their witnesses, if any, and to state whether they would opt for a formal investigation or
would waive such right.

Instead of filing their answers, private respondents filed separate Motions to Inhibit/Dismiss 11 seeking to
inhibit Samson on the ground that he had no authority under the law to conduct the administrative
investigations because his appointment as Provincial Legal Officer had not been acted upon by
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan del Sur, which concurrence is of utmost necessity to confer
upon his appointment by the Provincial Governor the imprimatur of legality and validity. Another issue
raised by private respondents was that they could not expect to be given due process and the cold
neutrality of an impartial committee.

On October 26, 1992, Samson issued an Omnibus Order 12 denying private respondents’ motions to
dismiss/inhibit.

On November 9, 1992, Plaza issued Memorandum Order Nos. 131-92 to 133-92 14 ordering the preventive
suspension of private respondents for a period of 60 days effective upon receipt of the orders.

Meantime, Resolution No. 11, Series of 1993 21 was issued by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Agusan
del Sur on February 11, 1993 reiterating the rejection of the appointment of Samson as Provincial Legal
Officer of the province for lack of the required 5-year law practice.
Issue: whether or not the suspension by Samson was valid

Yes, the CA opined that Samson’s authority as chairman of the PIC is not invalidated by the lack of
concurrence of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in his appointment as the Provincial Legal Officer.
Moreover, the preventive suspension of private respondents may be ordered even without a hearing as
such suspension is not a penalty but only a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. It likewise
ruled that the filing of the petition for certiorari and prohibition before the RTC was not a delay which
would interrupt the running of the period of preventive suspension. Lastly, the CA pronounced that to
sanction preventive suspension pending resolution of an administrative case is equivalent to indefinite
suspension which the Constitution prohibits.

Issue: Whether or not employees are entitled to backwages.


No.

The preventive suspension of the private respondents is authorized by R.A. No. 7160. Section 85 (a) of
the LGC of 1991 states:

SEC. 85. Preventive Suspension of Appointive Local Officials and Employees. — (a) The local
chief executives may preventively suspend for a period not exceeding sixty (60) days any
subordinate official or employee under his authority pending investigation if the charge against
such official or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct or neglect in the
performance of duty, or if there is reason to believe that the respondent is guilty of the charges
which would warrant his removal from the service.

Clearly, the law provides for the preventive suspension of appointive local officials and employees
pending investigation of the charges against them. The suspension given to private respondents cannot,
therefore, be considered unjustified for it is one of those sacrifices which holding a public office requires
for the public good.40 To be entitled to back salaries, private respondents must not only be found innocent
of the charges, but their suspension must likewise be unjustified.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy