Case Summary (G.R. No. 159883)
Petitioner
Dr. Pedro F. Gobenciong (in G.R. Nos. 159883 and 173212) and Office of the Ombudsman (in G.R. No. 168059)
Respondents
Deputy Ombudsman (Visayas), DOH Regional Director (Region VIII), Flora de la PeÑA, and Court of Appeals (Cebu City)
Key Dates
• Dec. 3–27, 1996: Procurement of a hemoanalyzer and related equipment; delivery certificates, COA report, voucher preparation, and payment
• Mar. 31, 1997: Supplier advises replacement of defective unit; replacement delivered and inspected (Apr. 2–3)
• June 20, 1997: Administrative complaint filed before Ombudsman–Visayas (OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370)
• Oct. 29, 1997: DOH formal charge for grave misconduct
• Aug. 24, 1998: Deputy Ombudsman orders preventive suspension of Gobenciong (six months)
• Nov. 19, 1998: CA issues TRO against implementation of preventive suspension
• Mar. 21, 2000: Ombudsman decision finding Gobenciong guilty; imposes one-year suspension without pay
• Apr. 29, 2005 and May 29, 2006: CA decision and resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 61687 setting aside the Ombudsman’s one-year suspension
• Nov. 26, 2002 and Aug. 27, 2003: CA decisions in CA-G.R. SP No. 49585 denying certiorari on preventive suspension
Applicable Law
• 1987 Constitution (Art. XI, Secs. 13 and 15)
• Republic Act No. 6770 (Ombudsman Act of 1989), particularly Secs. 19, 21–27
• Ombudsman Rules of Procedure, Rule III, Sec. 8
Factual Background
EVRMC issued Requisition and Issue Voucher EO-1-96 and Purchase Order EO-5-96 for a hemoanalyzer and nebulizers. Alvez Commercial, Inc. was declared the winning bidder and allegedly delivered the equipment on Dec. 20, 1996, as certified by Jocano and Babula. A COA inspection report confirmed inspection. Payment voucher and Landbank check followed. Supplier later admitted a defective hemoanalyzer and replaced it on Apr. 1–3, 1997.
Administrative Proceedings
Dr. de la PeÑA filed charges of falsification of public documents and misconduct against Gobenciong and others. On Aug. 24, 1998, the Deputy Ombudsman–Visayas ordered a six-month preventive suspension, finding strong evidence of falsified documents and potential prejudice to the investigation. Gobenciong sought reconsideration and obtained a CA TRO, yet the suspension ran its course.
Litigation History
• CA-G.R. SP No. 49585 (Gobenciong v. Deputy Ombudsman and DOH): TRO granted but later petition for certiorari denied (Nov. 26, 2002; motion for reconsideration denied Aug. 27, 2003).
• OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370: Ombudsman decision (Mar. 21, 2000) meted one-year suspension; motion for reconsideration denied Aug. 10, 2000; order to implement issued Nov. 16, 2000.
• CA-G.R. SP No. 61687 (Gobenciong appeal): CA held Ombudsman’s disciplinary orders merely recommendatory and set aside one-year suspension (Apr. 29, 2005; resolution May 29, 2006).
Issues Presented
- Whether a preventive suspension by the Ombudsman is immediately executory despite a pending motion for reconsideration or TRO.
- Whether the Ombudsman’s disciplinary authority is merely recommendatory or binding, including power to ensure compliance with penalties.
- Whether RA 6770 unlawfully delegates legislative power and violates equal protection by granting broad investigatory, prosecutorial, and disciplinary powers to the Ombudsman.
Supreme Court Ruling
• G.R. Nos. 159883 and 173212 (Gobenciong’s petitions): DISMISSED for lack of merit; CA decisions in SP 49585 affirmed in toto.
• G.R. No. 168059 (Ombudsman’s petition): GRANTED; CA decision in SP 61687 annulled and set aside; Ombudsman decision (Mar. 21, 2000) and order (Aug. 10, 2000) reinstated and affirmed.
Rationale
Immediate Executability of Preventive Suspension
– Sec. 27, RA 6770 provides that all provisionary orders of the Ombudsman are “immediately effective and executory.”
– Ombudsman Rules of Procedure (Rule III, Sec. 8) extends the period for filing reconsideration but does not stay execution.
– Harmonization of both provisions confirms that filing a motion for reconsideration does not suspend implementation.Binding Disciplinary Authority
– The Ombudsman’s power to remove, suspend, demote, fine, censure, or prosecute is consti
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 159883)
Petitions Consolidated
- Three petitions before the Supreme Court:
• G.R. No. 159883 – Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 by Dr. Pedro F. Gobenciong, challenging the Court of Appeals’ denial of his certiorari petition and upholding his preventive suspension.
• G.R. No. 168059 – Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 by the Office of the Ombudsman, assailing the CA’s modification of the Ombudsman’s decision insofar as it imposed one-year suspension on Gobenciong.
• G.R. No. 173212 – Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 by Dr. Gobenciong, seeking to reverse the CA’s April 29, 2005 Decision and May 29, 2006 Resolution in CA-G.R. SP No. 61687. - All three were consolidated and heard en banc.
Factual Background
- Dr. Pedro F. Gobenciong served as Administrative Officer IV of the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC) in Tacloban City.
- On December 3, 1996, EVRMC requisitioned a particle counter (hemoanalyzer) and nebulizers. Specifications and a handwritten quotation of PhP 1,195,998 per unit for the hemoanalyzer were noted.
- After public bidding, Alvez Commercial, Inc. won and delivered two nebulizers and one “particle counter” on December 20, 1996, as evidenced by a Certification of Acceptance and a COA Inspection Report, both signed by Gobenciong and Engr. Jose M. Jocano, Jr.
- Disbursement Voucher No. 101-9612-1986 for PhP 1,161,817.35 (net of VAT) was prepared, signed by Gobenciong, and paid by Landbank Check on December 27, 1996.
- A defective hemoanalyzer was later replaced by Alvez on April 1–2, 1997, inspected and accepted by Gobenciong and Jocano.
- On June 20, 1997, Dr. Flora dela Peaa filed an administrative complaint (OMB-VIS-ADM-97-0370) for falsification of public documents and misconduct against Gobenciong and others. A concurrent DOH investigation resulted in formal charges for grave misconduct on October 29, 1997.
Administrative Proceedings and Preventive Suspension
- August 24, 1998: Deputy Ombudsman–Visayas issued a preventive suspension order against Gobenciong and co-respondents for six months, per Section 24, RA 6770.
- Gobenciong sought deferment from t