Scribd
Upload
46 views1 page

5 Hagad vs. Gozo Dadole

The Ombudsman filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition against the RTC presiding judge regarding a writ of preliminary injunction. The case stemmed from criminal and administrative complaints filed by city councilors against the mayor, vice mayor, and council member for violations of anti-graft laws related to the alteration of an appropriations ordinance. One issue is whether the Ombudsman has authority to investigate local elective officials under the Ombudsman Act despite the new Local Government Code. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman's authority was not removed by the Local Government Code and the two laws are not inconsistent or irreconcilable.

Uploaded by

Ammar Kattoula
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
46 views1 page

5 Hagad vs. Gozo Dadole

The Ombudsman filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition against the RTC presiding judge regarding a writ of preliminary injunction. The case stemmed from criminal and administrative complaints filed by city councilors against the mayor, vice mayor, and council member for violations of anti-graft laws related to the alteration of an appropriations ordinance. One issue is whether the Ombudsman has authority to investigate local elective officials under the Ombudsman Act despite the new Local Government Code. The Supreme Court ruled that the Ombudsman's authority was not removed by the Local Government Code and the two laws are not inconsistent or irreconcilable.

Uploaded by

Ammar Kattoula
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/ 1

HAGAD v.

GOZO-DADOLE (presiding judge of RTC Branch XXVIII) et al


FACTS
Petition seeks to (a) annul the writ of preliminary injunction, dated on October 21, 1992,
against respondent trial court by petitioner, and (b) prohibit the said court from
proceeding RTC Case No, MDE-14.
Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas Arturo Mojica assumed Juan Hagad’s office, now
resigned, who took the initiative in instituting this special civil action for certiorari and
prohibition.
Controversy stemmed from the filing of criminal and administrative complaints (by Mandaue
City Councilors Magno Dionson and Gaudiosa Bercede) on July 22, 1992 against herein
respondents Mayor Alfredo Ouano, Vice-Mayor Peterno Cañete, and Sangguniang Panlungsod
Member Rafael Mayol, all pulic officials of Mandaue. Respondents were charged with
violation of RA 3019, Articles 170 and 171 of the RPC, and RA 6713. graft Councilors
averred that respondent officials, acting in conspiracy, caused the alteration and/or falsification
of Ordinance No. 019/93 by increasing the allocated appropriation therein from P3,494,364.57 to
P7,000,00 without authority from the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue.
A day after the filing of complaints, a sworn statement was filed by Atty. Ottara Jr. (council
secretary), supporting accusations against officials. Herein petitioner ordered Ouano (treasurer)
and Guido (Budget Officer) to file their counter-affidavits within ten (10) days from receipt.
Forthwith, Dionson and Bercede moved for preventive suspension of respondent officials.
ISSUES
Whether the Ombudsman, under R.A. 6770, has been divested of his country to conduct
administrative investigation over local elective officials by virtue of the enactment of R.A. 7160
RULING
No. The authority of the Ombudsman over local officials pursuant to RA 6770 is not removed by
LG Code of 1991.
There is nothing in the Local Government Code to indicate that it has repealed, whether
expressly or impliedly, the pertinent provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statutes on the
specific matter in question are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to
only uphold one and strike down the other. Well settled is the rule that repeals of laws by
implication are not favored, 16 and that courts must generally assume their congruent
application. The two laws must be absolutely incompatible, and a clear finding thereof must
surface, before the inference of implied repeal may be drawn. The rule is expressed in the
maxim, interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute must be so
interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform system of
jurisprudence. The fundament is that the legislature should be presumed to have known the
existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted conflicting statutes. Hence, all doubts must
be resolved against any implied repeal, and all efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize
and give effect to all laws on the subject.
The authority to conduct administrative investigation and to impose preventive suspension over
elective provincial or city officials was at that time entrusted to the Minister of Local
Government until it became concurrent with the Ombudsman upon the enactment of R.A. No.
6770, specifically under Sections 21 and 24 thereof, to the extent of the common grant. The
Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No. 7160), in fine, did not effect a change from what
already prevailed, the modification being only in the substitution of the Secretary (the Minister)
of Local Government by the Office of the President.

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