Scribd
Upload
356 views3 pages

Plaza v. Court of Appeals

1) The case involved the preventive suspension of three local government employees by the Governor of Agusan del Sur pending an investigation into administrative complaints against them. 2) The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the suspensions and the authority of the committee chairman conducting the investigation, even though his own appointment was lacking approval. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, finding that the law allows for preventive suspensions of local officials under investigation and that the employees were not entitled to back wages unless proven innocent and the suspensions unjustified.

Uploaded by

Gwaine C. Gelindon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
356 views3 pages

Plaza v. Court of Appeals

1) The case involved the preventive suspension of three local government employees by the Governor of Agusan del Sur pending an investigation into administrative complaints against them. 2) The Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the suspensions and the authority of the committee chairman conducting the investigation, even though his own appointment was lacking approval. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling, finding that the law allows for preventive suspensions of local officials under investigation and that the employees were not entitled to back wages unless proven innocent and the suspensions unjustified.

Uploaded by

Gwaine C. Gelindon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

ADMIN | DIGESTS | 2F

Case No. 26: Plaza v. Court of Appeals


G.R. No. 138464, 18 January 2008

Appointive Officials
Pedro

DOCTRINE:
• 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. To be entitled to
back salaries, private respondents must not only be found innocent of the charges, but
their suspension must likewise be unjustified.

FACTS:
● 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,
Gilsano was charged with neglect in the performance of duty, 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

Secretary - Ms. Fe Tan-Cebrian


Acting Provincial Personnel Officer

Member - Hon. Virginia M. Getes


SP Member

- Mr. Adulfo A. Llagas


Asst. Provincial Treasurer
Officer-in-Charge

● 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/Dismiss11 seeking to inhibit Samson on the ground that he had no authority
under the law to conduct the administrative investigations because his appointment as
ADMIN | DIGESTS | 2F

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 Order12 denying private
respondents’ motions to dismiss/inhibit.
● On November 9, 1992, Plaza issued Memorandum Order Nos. 131-92 to 133-9214
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 199321 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.

RTC RULING: The trial court dismissed the petition. RTC reasoned that private respondents
failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies since the proper forum to decide the
dispute is the Civil Service Commission (CSC) pursuant to Section 87 of R.A. No. 7160.

CA RULING: The appellate court denied the motion for reconsideration by the private
respondents. 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.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the suspension by Samson was valid - YES
2. Whether or not employees are entitled to backwages - NO

ARGUMENTS

• HON. GOVERNOR DEMOCRITO O. • COURT OF APPEALS, GIL POL TAN,


PLAZA (deceased, to be substituted ELISA O. GILSANO, and
by incumbent GOVERNOR EMMANUEL S. QUISMUNDO
(RESPONDENTS)
VALENTINA G. PLAZA), DANILO S.
SAMSON, FE TAN-CEBRIAN,
HONORABLE SB MEMBER (now
Vice Governor) VIRGINIA M. G
ETES, ADULFO A. LLAGAS (as
members of the Administrative
Investigating Committee),
FRANCISCO U. FERNANDEZ, and
ADMIN | DIGESTS | 2F

JOSEFINA V. BAJADE
(PETITIONERS)

SC RULING:
1. 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.
2. 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.

ADDITIONAL NOTES (DOCTRINES)


●

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