Case Summary (G.R. No. 137842)
Factual Background
Beginning in 1988, ten administrative complaints alleging abuse of authority, oppression, grave misconduct and related charges were filed against Mayor Ganzon. Secretary Santos issued three preventive suspension orders dated 11 August 1988, 11 October 1988 and 3 May 1990 (each for 60 days). A fourth preventive suspension was issued on 3 July 1991 in relation to Administrative Case No. 51-90. Litigation followed at the Court of Appeals and at this Court challenging the validity and enforcement of those suspension orders; multiple TROs, motions, and remedies for prohibition and mandamus were invoked by the parties.
Procedural History Leading to the Main Decision
The Court of Appeals dismissed the initial petitions for lack of merit. This Court, in its main decision promulgated 5 August 1991, affirmed the validity of the preventive suspension orders and lifted an earlier TRO issued by this Court. The main decision affirmed the 60-day suspensions, ordered consolidation of pending administrative cases, and specifically provided that Mayor Ganzon may not be made to serve future suspensions for acts committed prior to 11 August 1988. After promulgation of the main decision, Secretary Santos issued a memorandum (29 August 1991) declaring the third suspension (3 May 1990) in force; the Court of Appeals issued a TRO on 3 September 1991 enjoining enforcement of that memorandum, and this Court issued a restraining order on 5 September 1991 directing the Court of Appeals to cease implementation of its TRO. Petitioner subsequently moved to dissolve that 5 September restraining order.
Core Legal Issue
The central question resolved in the present resolution was the date on which Mayor Ganzon could lawfully re-assume the mayoralty — in other words, how the respective preventive suspension orders had actually been served, how much of each remained to be served after interruptions by court orders, and whether overlapping suspensions could be credited simultaneously so as to shorten the aggregate period of suspension.
Court’s Findings on Actual Service of Suspensions
The Court examined the parties’ competing accounts and contemporaneous official documents to determine when Mayor Ganzon actually served each suspension. It found: (a) the first suspension (11 August 1988) had been fully served; (b) the second suspension (11 October 1988) remained unserved at that time because its enforcement had been restrained by an RTC order; (c) the third suspension (3 May 1990) was served from 4 May 1990 until 18 May 1990 — fourteen days — because a TRO issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 20736 on 18 May 1990 interrupted further service; and (d) the fourth suspension (3 July 1991) was served from 5 July 1991 through 3 September 1991 and was admitted by respondents to have been fully served.
Computation of Remaining Suspension Time and Options for Service
Because the third suspension entailed a 60-day period and only 14 days had been served, 46 days remained to be served. The Court identified two possible modes for completing those 46 days consistent with the main decision: (1) commence service immediately upon promulgation of the main decision (5 August 1991) and continue until the 46 days were completed; or (2) begin remaining service after the end of the fourth suspension (i.e., starting 4 September 1991), which would result in completion on 20 October 1991. The Court emphasized accurate computation rules, employing Article 13 of the Civil Code (exclude first day, include last day) when counting the days.
Rationale and Adoption of Simultaneous Service for Overlapping Suspensions
The Court allowed, in the exceptional circumstances of this case, concurrent (simultaneous) crediting of overlapping suspension service between the third and fourth preventive suspensions. The Court’s reasoning is twofold: (1) permitting simultaneous service benefits the elective official and the local polity by lessening cumulative punitive effects that appear to have emanated from piecemeal suspensions; and (2) the main decision criticized the Secretary’s piecemeal imposition of successive suspensions instead of consolidating related administrative cases, and simultaneous service offsets that procedural approach. Applying concurrent crediting, the Court calculated that 29 overlapping days (5 August–3 September 1991) counted toward both the third and fourth suspensions, reducing the remaining days for the third suspension from 46 to 17; those 17 days ran from 4 September 1991 through 20 September 1991, completing the third suspension on 20 September 1991.
Application of the Local Government Code (Section 63)
The Court expressly took judicial notice of the recently approved Local Government Code of 1991 (scheduled to take effect on 1 January 1992) and cited Section 63, which limits any single preventive suspension of a local elective official to 60 days and provides that, in event of several administrative cases, an elective official cannot be preventively suspended for more than 90 days within a single year on the same ground or grounds existing and known at the time of the first suspension. The Court used the Code’s policy and numeric limits to support allowing simultaneous crediting in favor of the elective official under the peculiar facts before it.
Treatment of the Second Suspension and Related RTC Injunction
The main decision had affirmed three suspension orders (first, second and third). The Court concluded that, consistent with its affirmance, the second suspension — which had previously been enjoined by an
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 137842)
Parties and Case Identifiers
- Petitioner: Rodolfo T. Ganzon, elected City Mayor of Iloilo City.
- Additional petitioner consolidated: Mary Ann Rivera Artieda (G.R. No. 93746), similarly charged and whose petition the Court of Appeals certified to the Supreme Court.
- Respondents: The Court of Appeals; Luis T. Santos in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of Local Government; Nicanor M. Patricio in his capacity as Chief, Legal Service of the Department of Local Government; Salvador Cabaluna, Jr.
- Supreme Court docket numbers cited: G.R. No. 93252 (primary), G.R. No. 93746, and G.R. No. 95245.
- Appellate Court petition docket numbers referenced: CA-G.R. SP No. 16417; CA-G.R. SP No. 20736; CA-G.R. SP No. 25840 (mandamus petition filed 30 August 1991).
- Source citation: 280 Phil. 431 EN BANC; Resolution promulgated by Padilla, J., with concurrence of majority of Justices; Melencio-Herrera, J., on leave.
Nature of the Case
- Administrative suspensions issued against an elective local official (Mayor Ganzon) for alleged administrative offenses including abuse of authority, oppression, grave misconduct and others.
- Multiple preventive suspension orders issued piecemeal by the Secretary of the Department of Local Government and multiple petitions and restraining orders in various tribunals contesting those suspensions.
- Central legal and factual question: computation and effect of multiple preventive suspension orders, the permissibility and effect of simultaneous service of overlapping suspensions, and the date when petitioner may re-assume his official duties.
Factual Background (chronological summary)
- In 1988, ten (10) administrative complaints were filed by various city officials against Mayor Ganzon for various administrative charges.
- Three (3) preventive suspension orders were issued in relation to those administrative cases:
- First order dated 11 August 1988 (60 days) — admitted to be fully served by petitioner.
- Second order dated 11 October 1988 (60 days) — enforcement restrained by a writ of preliminary injunction issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, Branch 33.
- Third order dated 3 May 1990 (60 days).
- Petitioner filed petitions for prohibition in the Court of Appeals challenging the first two orders (CA-G.R. SP No. 16417 and CA-G.R. SP No. 20736). The Court of Appeals dismissed both petitions on 7 September 1988 and 5 July 1990 respectively.
- On 26 June 1990, the Supreme Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) barring the Secretary from implementing the suspension orders and restraining enforcement of the Court of Appeals’ decisions.
- Before the Supreme Court’s main decision of 5 August 1991, on 3 July 1991 the Secretary issued another preventive suspension (hereafter the fourth suspension) in Administrative Case No. 51-90 (complainant Octavius J. Jopson), effective immediately for 60 days.
- Petitioner filed an “extremely urgent motion” dated 6 July 1991 (with supplements) questioning validity of the July 3, 1991 suspension; the Supreme Court required respondents to comment (resolution dated 9 July 1991).
- Supreme Court promulgated the “main decision” on 5 August 1991 upholding the validity of the preventive suspension orders and affirming suspensions, with specific directions: lifting the then-existing TRO, consolidating administrative cases, and a proviso protecting petitioner from future suspensions for acts committed prior to August 11, 1988.
- Respondent Santos issued a memorandum dated 29 August 1991 declaring the third preventive suspension (3 May 1990) “deemed in force.”
- On 30 August 1991, petitioner filed a mandamus petition in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 25840) and a “manifestation and compliance” in the Supreme Court stating he had fully served the suspension orders and sought reinstatement effective 4 September 1991.
- Court of Appeals granted a TRO on 3 September 1991 enjoining Santos’ memorandum of 29 August 1991.
- Supreme Court issued a TRO on 5 September 1991 directing the Court of Appeals to cease implementing its 3 September 1991 TRO.
- Petitioner filed a motion to dissolve the Supreme Court TRO on 9 September 1991.
- At the time of the Supreme Court resolution, petitioner remained suspended and was serving the fourth suspension (issued 3 July 1991) which ran from 5 July 1991 and ended on 3 September 1991 (60 days).
Procedural Posture and Motions Before the Supreme Court
- Petitioner’s urgent motion dated 7 September 1991 sought dissolution of the Supreme Court’s TRO dated 5 September 1991 (which restrained the Court of Appeals’ TRO of 3 September 1991).
- Respondents filed motions (9 and 29 August 1991) contending certain issues were rendered moot by the main decision and sought clarification whether further compliance with prior Supreme Court resolutions was necessary.
- Petitioner’s CA petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 25840) and the RTC action (Special Civil Action No. 18312, Ganzon v. Santos, et al.) were pending on related questions regarding validity and enforcement of preventive suspensions.
Issues Presented
- Primary issue: When may petitioner Rodolfo T. Ganzon re-assume his office as Mayor of Iloilo City — immediately after lifting of the Supreme Court TRO or at some later date (respondents argued after 19 October 1991)?
- Subsidiary issues:
- How many days of the third suspension (3 May 1990) did petitioner actually serve, and how many days remained to be served after the main decision of 5 August 1991?
- Whether the third and fourth preventive suspension orders may be served “simultaneously” (i.e., overlapping days credited to both suspensions).
- Whether the second preventive suspension (11 October 1988), previously restrained by an RTC injunction, still required service despite the main decision’s affirmation of the three suspensions.
- Whether the petitions in CA-G.R. SP No. 25840 and Special Civil Action No. 18312 were rendered moot and academic by the Supreme Court’s rulings.
Findings on Actual Service of Suspensions
- First suspension (11 August 1988): Admittedly fully served by petitioner.
- Third suspension (3 May 1990):
- Both parties agreed petitioner began service on 4 May 1990.
- Supreme Court determined petitioner served the third suspension only from 4 May 1990 up to 18 May 1990, because the Court of Appeals issu