Title
Ganzon vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 93252
Decision Date
Nov 8, 1991
Mayor Ganzon challenged multiple preventive suspension orders; Supreme Court upheld suspensions but allowed simultaneous service, enabling his reinstatement after full compliance.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 93252)

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), Section 63 on preventive suspension

Key Dates

• August 11, 1988 – First 60-day preventive suspension order issued
• October 11, 1988 – Second 60-day preventive suspension order issued
• May 3, 1990 – Third 60-day preventive suspension order issued
• June 26, 1990 – Supreme Court TRO against the first three suspensions
• July 3, 1991 – Fourth 60-day preventive suspension order issued
• August 5, 1991 – Supreme Court promulgates main decision affirming all three original suspensions and lifting TRO
• September 3, 1991 – Court of Appeals issues TRO against reinstatement memorandum
• September 5, 1991 – Supreme Court issues TRO restraining the CA from enforcing its TRO
• September 4, 1991 – Completion of service of the fourth suspension
• September 20, 1991 – Computed completion of the remaining third-order suspension

Summary of Facts

In 1988, ten administrative complaints alleging abuse of authority, oppression, and grave misconduct were filed against Mayor Ganzon. Secretary Santos issued three separate preventive suspensions of 60 days each (Aug. 11 and Oct. 11, 1988; May 3, 1990). Ganzon challenged the first two orders in the Court of Appeals, which dismissed his petitions. He then filed consolidated petitions in the Supreme Court (G.R. Nos. 93252, 93746, 95245). While those petitions were pending, Santos issued a fourth 60-day suspension on July 3, 1991, based on a separate administrative complaint.

Procedural History

  1. June 26, 1990: SC issues TRO barring enforcement of the first three suspension orders.
  2. August 5, 1991: SC affirms validity of the first three suspensions, lifts TRO, and orders consolidation of remaining cases; affirms fourth suspension on Mary Ann Artieda.
  3. August 29, 1991: Secretary memoranda that the third suspension (May 3, 1990) is in force.
  4. August 30, 1991: Ganzon files petition for mandamus (CA SP No. 25840) and manifestation of full service of suspensions.
  5. September 3, 1991: CA grants TRO suspending enforcement of Secretary’s August 29 memorandum.
  6. September 5, 1991: SC issues TRO restraining the CA from enforcing its TRO.
  7. September 9, 1991: Ganzon moves to dissolve the SC TRO.

Legal Issue

When may Mayor Ganzon legally re-assume office: immediately after serving the suspensions as decreed, or only after October 19, 1991, as respondents claim?

Analysis of Suspension Service

• First suspension (Aug. 11, 1988): fully served.
• Second suspension (Oct. 11, 1988): not served due to a preliminary injunction by RTC Iloilo.
• Third suspension (May 3, 1990): served from May 4 to May 18, 1990 (14 days) before CA TRO interrupted service. Remaining 46 days to be served.
• Fourth suspension (July 3, 1991): fully served from July 5 to September 3, 1991.

The Supreme Court holds that overlapping service of the third and fourth suspensions is permissible under the Local Government Code’s rule that no local elective official may be preventively suspended more than 90 days in a year for the same grounds. By crediting the 29 overlapping days (Aug. 5 to Sept. 3, 1991) to both suspensions, only 17 days remain on the third order, expiring on September 20,





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.