Case Digest: PRUDENCIO QUIMBO v . ACTING OMBUDSMAN MARGARITO GERVACIO et al. 466 SCRA 277 (2005)

PRUDENCIO QUIMBO v . ACTING OMBUDSMAN MARGARITO GERVACIO et al. 466 SCRA 277 (2005)

Petitioner Prudencio C. Quimbo, Provincial Engineer of Samar, was administratively charged for harassment and oppression by Elmo V. Padaon (Padaon), a general foreman. During the pendency of the case, he was placed under preventive suspension without pay. The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman found Quimbo guilty of oppression and recommended that he be ―suspended from office for a period of eight (8) months without pay. This was approved by the Ombudsman. The Court of Appeals (CA) found Quimbo guilty of simple misconduct only and penalized him with suspension from office for a period of two (2) months without pay. Quimbo filed a Motion for Modification/Reconsideration calling attention to the fact that he had been on preventive suspension from March 18, 1998 to June 1, 1998 and praying that the order under reconsideration be modified ―to take into account the period of his PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION of 2 MONTHS and 17 DAYS WITHOUT PAY as part of the final penalty imposed. The Ombudsman clarified that ―preventive suspension is not a penalty but a preliminary step in an investigation; and that if after such investigation, the charge is established and the person investigated upon is found guilty warranting the imposition of penalty, then he shall accordingly be penalized. Such was affirmed by the CA.

 
ISSUE:

Whether or not the preventive suspension pending the investigation is a penalty.

HELD:

Jurisprudential law establishes a clear-cut distinction between suspension as preventive measure and suspension as penalty. The distinction, by considering the purpose aspect of the suspensions, is readily cognizable as they have different ends sought to be achieved. Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him. If after such investigation, the charge is established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his suspension or removal, then he is suspended, removed or dismissed. This is the penalty. That preventive suspension is not a penalty is in fact explicitly provided by Section 24 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws. As stated in Sec. 24, preventive suspension is not a punishment or penalty for misconduct in office but is considered to be a preventive measure. Not being a penalty, the period within which one is under preventive suspension is not considered part of the actual penalty of suspension. So Section 25 of the same Rule XIV provides that the period within which a public officer or employee charged is placed under preventive suspension shall not be considered part of the actual penalty of suspension imposed upon the employee found guilty. Clearly, service of the preventive suspension cannot be credited as service of penalty. To rule otherwise is to disregard above-quoted Sections 24 and 25 of the Administrative Code of 1987 and render nugatory the substantial distinction between, and purposes of imposing preventive suspension and suspension as penalty.