G.R. No. 199650 - J Plus Asia Development Corp. vs. Utility Assurance Corp.

Petitioner: Gov. Eduardo Nonato Joson of Nueva Ecija; respondents: Vice-Gov. Oscar C. Tinio and five members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Private respondents filed on Sept. 17, 1996 a letter-complaint dated Sept. 13, 1996 alleging that on Sept. 12, 1996 Gov. Joson forcibly entered the session hall with armed men to intimidate them into approving a ₱150 million loan.

Pres. Ramos noted the complaint on its margin, found no justification for use of force, and instructed the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to take “preemptive and investigative actions” without disturbing the peace.
On Sept. 20, 1996 SILG Sec. Barbers docketed the complaint (DILG Admin. Case No. P-02-96) and ordered Gov. Joson to file a verified answer within 15 days. Joson repeatedly sought and received extensions, yet ultimately failed to timely answer. Multiple default orders were issued, reconsidered, and reinstated between April and June 1997.

On July 11, 1997, Exec. Sec. Ruben D. Torres, by authority of the President, placed Gov. Joson under a 60-day preventive suspension; Vice-Gov. Tinio was designated acting governor.
Josén filed petitions with the Court of Appeals and multiple motions before the DILG, including for dismissal, lifting of default, and conducting a formal investigation. The DILG denied motions to dismiss and for formal investigation, ruled the case submitted on position papers, and proceeded with evaluation.

On Jan. 8, 1998 the Executive Secretary, adopting the DILG Secretary’s resolution, found Gov. Joson guilty and imposed a six-month suspension without pay.
Gov. Joson filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunctive relief with the Supreme Court, obtained a temporary restraining order, and challenged the validity of the Jan. 8 suspension.

Whether strict application of procedural and evidentiary rules is required in administrative disciplinary proceedings against elective local officials.
Whether the DILG properly denied Gov. Joson’s motion for formal investigation and decided the case on position papers alone.

Whether the DILG Secretary validly exercised investigative authority delegated by the President under A.O. No. 23.
Whether the President’s disciplinary power over elective local officials may be vested in the Executive Secretary and DILG under the alter-ego doctrine.

Whether Gov. Joson was properly declared in default for filing a motion to dismiss instead of a verified answer as directed.
Whether the DILG Secretary had discretion to treat failure to file an answer as a waiver of evidence and to proceed ex parte.

Whether the preventive suspension was properly imposed after joinder of issues, on strong evidence, and due to risk of influencing witnesses or disturbing peace.
Whether the six-month suspension without pay violated due process by being imposed without a formal hearing.