Buenaseda v Flavier

FACTS
 An admin case was filed against the petitioners by the National center
for mental health Nurses association for violation of the anti-graft and
corrupt practices act
 The ombudsman then issued an order directing the preventive
suspension of the petitioners
o Sol gen in a comment said that

 Authority of omb is only to recommend suspension and he

has no direct power to suspend
 Assuming he does, there are conditions required by law for
the exercise of such powers and in this case, they weren’t
met
 Petitioners adopted SG position Ombudsman can only suspend
government officials or employees connected with his office.

ISSUE: whether the Ombudsman has the power to suspend government

officials and employees working in offices other than the Office of the
Ombudsman, pending the investigation of the administrative complaints
filed against said officials and employees.

 Respondents rely on Sec. 24 of RA 6770 re: power of preventive

suspension of ombudsman
o Sec. 24. Preventive Suspension.· The Ombudsman or his Deputy

may preventively suspend any officer or employee under his

authority pending an investigatio n, if in his judgment the
evidence of guilt is strong , and (a) the charge against such officer
or employee involves dishonesty, oppression or grave misconduct
or neglect in the performance of duty; (b) the charge would
warrant removal from the service; or (c) the respondent’s
continued stay in office may prejudice the case filed against him.
The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is
terminated by the Office of Ombudsman but not more than six
months
Buenaseda v Flavier

The preventive suspension shall continue until the case is

terminated by the Office of Ombudsman but not more than six
months.
 They say that this is contemplated by sec 13(8) article 11 of the 1987
consti which says  the ombudsman shall exercise such other power or
perform such functions or duties as may be provided by law
 Petitioners NAMAN: under 1987 consti  the Ombudsman can only
recommend to the heads of the departments and other agencies the
preventive suspension of officials and employees facing administrative
investigation conducted by his office. Hence, he cannot order the
preventive suspension himself. (sec 13.3 of the 1987 consti)
 According to Sol gen 3 distinct powers of the ombudsman (1) direct
the officer concerned to take appropriate action against public officials
or employees at fault; (2) recommend their removal, suspension,
demotion fine, censure, or prosecution; and (3) compel compliance with
the recommendation

DECISION
 SC: note that suspension by ombudsman is not punitive, but
PREVENTIVE
 When the Constitution vested on the Ombudsman the power “to
recommend the suspension” of a public official or employees, it referred
to “suspension,” as a punitive measure.
 All the words associated with the word “suspension” in said provision
referred to penalties in administrative cases, e.g. removal, demotion,
fine, censure. Under the rule of Noscitor a sociis, the word “suspension”
should be given the same sense as the other words with which it is
associated. Where a particular word is equally susceptible of various
meanings, its correct construction may be made specific by considering
the company of terms in which it is found or with which it is associated
 While in Sec 2 of RA 6770, which grants the ombudsman power to
preventively suspend public officials and employees facing admin
charges before him is a PROCEDURAL, NOT A PENAL STATUTE
Buenaseda v Flavier

o Suspension here is an aid in investigation of the admin charges

o in consti, ombudsman can make recommendation for suspension
 to make intelligent decision, he has to conduct investigation 
to conduct investigation, he may need to suspend accused to
prevent situations like tampering with evidence
o
ombudsman should be given discretion to decide when persons
facing admin charges should be preventively suspended
 Penal statutes are strictly construed while procedural statutes are
liberally construed
o Test to determine if statute is penal: whether a penalty is for a

punishment of a wrong to the public or for redress of an injury to

an individual
o Purpose of 6770  help ombudsman to perform consti mandated

task so IT IS PROCEDURAL  liberally construed dapat to advance

purposes and objectives for which it was created
 Neri v Garcia  preventive suspension not a penalty, but a preliminary
step in an admin investigation
 ORIGIN OF sec 24 of 6770 (suspend any officer under his authority)
o From RAC to Civil service act the words “subordinate and

employees in his bureau” were present

o This was deleted when power to discipline gov officials was

extended to CSC by the civil service law so natira na lang “under

his authority”
o The Ombudsman Law advisedly deleted the words “subordinate”

and “in his bureau,” leaving the phrase to read “suspend any
officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation x
x x.”
 The conclusion that can be deduced from the deletion of the
word “subordinate” before and the words “in his bureau”
after “officer or employee” is that the Congress intended to
empower the Ombudsman to preventively suspend all
officials and employees under investigation by his office ,
irrespective of whether they are employed “in his office or
in other offices of the government.
Buenaseda v Flavier

 The moment a criminal or administrative complaint is filed

with the Ombudsman, the respondent therein is deemed to
be “in his authority
 For arguendo daw sabi ng sol gen, omb has power to preventively
suspend, order still null and void since it failed to comply with the
requisites in sec 24 of the ombudsman law
o Mere order for preventive suspension lang  no need for full

blown hearing and presentation of evidence

 NO QUESTION: under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770  MAY GUIDELINES
NAMAN IN EXERCISING THIS POWER (look sa taas!!)
o In this case: deputies followed due procedure so no showing of

bias in recommending
 Threatening to file contempt charges against pet lawyers BOBO
o as in fact such a motion was filed, with the Ombudsman. At any

rate, we find that the acts alleged to constitute indirect contempt

were legitimate measures taken by said lawyers to question the
validity and propriety of the preventive suspension of their clients
o but still the court told them to be respectful in keeping with dignity

of the legal profession and and with behavior towards brethren in

profession

Bellosillo concurring
 agree na omb has authority to preventively suspend bu in this case daw
facts may not provide adequate basis

may be suspending key gov officials daw and may disrupt normal
oparations of hospital and majeopardize care of mental health patients
 “I would be amenable to holding oral argument to hear the parties if
only to have enough factual and legal bases to justify the preventive
suspension of petitioners.”