Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1989 > May 1989 Decisions > G.R. No. 85815 May 19, 1989 - ELENO T. REGIDOR, JR., ET AL. v. WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. 85815. May 19, 1989.]

ELENO T. REGIDOR, JR., ANICETO T. SIETE, CAMILO B. ZAPATOS & RODULFO ENRIQUEZ, Petitioners, v. GOV WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN, Vice Gov. FLORENCIO GARCIA, Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Members MARIVIC SAGRADO, MORPHEUS AGOT, CONSTANCIO BALAIS, ALEGRIA CARIÑO, ERNESTO IRA, PACITA YAP, JULIO TIU and Sangguniang Panglunsod, ROBERTO O. TACLOB, Respondents.

Donatillo C . Macamay, for Petitioners.

Vicente Sarigumba for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE; PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION OF PROVINCIAL OR CITY OFFICIAL; AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND VESTED ON MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT. — Section 61 of the Local Government Code provides that complaints against elective provincial or city officials should be verified and should be filed before the Minister of Local Government. Section 63 provides that the Minister of Local Government may impose a preventive suspension against the accused elective provincial or city official.

2. ID.; ID.; IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATION; RULE ON PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION SHOULD BE READ TOGETHER WITH SEC. 63 OF THE CODE. — Section 7, Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules & Regulations of the Local Government Code. The rule should be read in juxtaposition with Section 63 of the Code which provides that "preventive suspension may be imposed by the Minister of Local Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official, by the provincial governor if the respondent is an elective municipal official, or by the city or municipal mayor if the respondent is an elective barangay official." In light of Section 63 of the Code, Section 7 of Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules & Regulations should be interpreted to mean that the Minister of Local Government may preventively suspend an elective provincial or city official, the Provincial Governor may preventively suspend an elective municipal official, and the city or municipal mayor may preventively should be for complaints against provincial or city officials are supposed to be filed with the Minister (NOW secretary) of Local Government, hence, it is he (not the provincial governor) who would know whether or not the charges are serious enough to warrant the suspension of the accused elective provincial or city official. In this case, the implementing rule (Sec. 7, Rule 18) does not in fact clash with the law (Sec. 63, Local Government Code) — the draftsmanship is not perfect but the use of the phrase "as the case may be" and the term "respectively" indicates a delineation of the power to suspend.

3. ID.; ID.; RULE ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY MAY NOT CLASH WITH THE CODE. — No rule or regulation issued by the Secretary of Local Government may alter, amend, or contravene a provision of the Local Government Code. The implementing rules should conform, not clash, with the law that they implement, for a regulation which operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a nullity (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Vda. de Prieto, L-13912, September 30, 1950). A rule or regulation that was issued to implement a law may not go beyond the terms and provisions of the law (People v. Lim, 108 Phil. 1091).


D E C I S I O N


GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:


This petition for prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction was filed by the petitioners who are the duly elected city officials of Tangub City of Misamis Occidental. Eleno T. Regidor was elected City Mayor of Tangub City, the other petitioners, Aniceto T. Siete, Camilo B. Zapatos and Rodulfo Enriquez, are respectively the Vice-Mayor and members of the Sangguniang Panglunsod of Tangub City, who were elected in the January 18, 1988 local elections, were proclaimed in due course, and assumed office.chanrobles law library

On November 3, 1988, respondents William Chiongbian and Florencio Garcia, Marivic Sagrado, Morpheus Agot, Constancio Balais, Alegria Cariño, Ernesto Ira, Pacita Yap, and Julio Tiu, who are respectively the Provincional Governor, the Vice- Governor, and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, approved Resolution No. 340-88 recommending the suspension of the petitioners who failed to appear on November 18, 1988 at the hearing of a compliant for unspecified misconduct which respondent Robert O. Taclob filed against them in the office of the Governor and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

Pursuant to the resolution, Governor William Chiongbian issued on November 24, 1988 an Order of Preventive Suspension, suspending the petitioners "from their elective positions as City Mayor , City Vice-Mayor and Sangguniang Panglunsod members of Tangub City for a period of 60 days effective November 25, 1988" and ordering them to "cease and desist from performing the functions and duties of their respective offices (Annex D, p. 10, Rollo).

On the same day, Governor Chiongbian appointed Taclob, a member of the Sangguniang Panglunsod of Tangub City, as Officer-in-Charge of Tangub City in lieu of Mayor Eleno T. Regidor (Annex E, p. 11, Rollo). Taclob belongs to the governor’s political faction while Regidor and the other petitioners belong to the rival faction of Alfonso Tan, the defeated opponent of respondent Chiongbian for the governorship of Misamis Occidental.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

The petition alleges that respondents Governor Chiongbian and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan acted without authority, and contrary to law, in issuing the Order of Preventive Suspension against the petitioners because under Section 63 of the preventively suspended by the Minister of Local Government, not by the Provincial Governor.

Upon receipt of the petition, this Court issued a temporary restraining order commanding the respondents to "cease and desist from implementing or enforcing Resolution No. 340-88 dated November 23, 1988 and Preventive Suspension Order dated November 24, 1988, and enjoining respondent Robert O. Taclob from assuming the position of OIC Mayor of Tangub City" (p. 25, Rollo.)

In their comment on the petition, the respondents justified the suspension of the petitioners as a valid exercise of the Provincial Governor’s power of general supervision over a component city (Par. 6.4, Section 1, Rule 4 of the Implemeting Rules & Regulations of the Local Government Code), and that it was done "in pursuance to (sic) the provisions of the Local Government Code and the Rules & Regulations implementing said law." (p. 25, Rollo.)

However, the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code and the Implementing Rules and Regulations thereof do not sustain the respondents’ contention in the case.

Section 61 of the Local Government Code provides that complaints against elective provincial or city officials should be verified and should be filed before the Minister of Local Government.chanrobles lawlibrary : rednad

Section 63 provides that the Minister of Local Government may impose a preventive suspension against the accused elective provincial or city officials, thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Sec. 63. Preventive Suspension. — (1) Preventive suspension may be imposed by the Minister of the Local Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official, by the provincial governor if the respondent is an elective municipal official, or by city or municipal mayor if the respondent is an elective barangay official.

"(2) Preventive suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent has committed the act or acts of, when the evidence of culpability is strong, when the gravity of the offense so warrants, or when the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence. In all cases, preventive suspension shall not extend beyond sixty days after the start of said suspension.

"(3) At the expiration of sixty days, the suspended official shall be deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings against him until its termination. However, if the delay in the proceedings of the case is due to his fault, neglect or request, the time of the delay shall not be counted in computing the time of suspension."cralaw virtua1aw library

Section 7 of the Implementing Rules & Regulations reads as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

Sec. 7. Preventive Suspension. — If from the answer of the respondent, and the compliant filed, the Minister/Sanggunian concerned find and determine that there is reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the act or acts complained of, when the evidence of guilt is strong, when the gravity of the offense so warrants, or the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidences, the Minister of Local Government, provincial governor, or municipal mayor as the case may be, may preventively suspend an elective provincial, City, municipal or barangay official, respectively: Provided, That the preventive suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days after the start of said suspension."cralaw virtua1aw library

There is no merit in the respondents’ contention that the order of preventive suspension issued by Governor Chiongbian was within the authority granted in Section 7, Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules & Regulations to "the Minister of Local Government, provincial governor, or municipal mayor, as the case may be," to "preventively suspend an elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay official respectively." chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Respondents misread and misconstrued Section 7, Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules & Regulations of the Local Government Code. The rule should be read in juxtaposition with Section 63 of the Code which provides that "preventive suspension may be imposed by the Minister of Local Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official, by the provincial governor if the respondent is an elective municipal official, or by the city or municipal mayor if the respondent is an elective barangay official." In light of Section 63 of the Code, Section 7 of Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules & Regulations should be interpreted to mean that the Minister of Local Government may preventively suspend an elective provincial or city official, the Provincial Governor may preventively suspend an elective municipal official, and the city or municipal mayor may preventively should be for complaints against provincial or city officials are supposed to be filed with the Minister (NOW secretary) of Local Government, hence, it is he (not the provincial governor) who would know whether or not the charges are serious enough to warrant the suspension of the accused elective provincial or city official.

No rule or regulation issued by the Secretary of Local Government may alter, amend, or contravene a provision of the Local Government Code. The implementing rules should conform, not clash, with the law that they implement, for a regulation which operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a nullity (Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Vda. de Prieto, L-13912, September 30, 1950). A rule or regulation that was issued to implement a law may not go beyond the terms and provisions of the law (People v. Lim, 108 Phil. 1091).

In this case, the implementing rule (Sec. 7, Rule 18) does not in fact clash with the law (Sec. 63, Local Government Code) — the draftsmanship is not perfect but the use of the phrase "as the case may be" and the term "respectively" indicates a delineation of the power to suspend.]chanrobles law library : red

As the complaint or complaints against the petitioners were filed with the Office of the Provincial Governor, nor with the Minister of Local Government as required in Section 61 of the Local Government Code, and as the preventive suspension of the petitioners was ordered by the Provincial Governor, not by the Minister of Local Government, the notice of hearing, subpoena, and order of preventive suspension issued by the respondents governor and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan against the petitioners are hereby declared null and void. (Local Government Code [BP 337], Title Two, Chapter 4, Sec. 63[1].) The respondents are without are without authority to investigate the petitioners, and the latter may not be compelled to attend the hearings. Their refusal to answer the charges against them was justified.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is granted. The Resolution No. 340-88 of the Sangguniang Panglunsod, and the order of preventive suspension issued by respondent Governor William Chiongbian, the appointment of Robert O. Taclob as OIC Mayor of Tangub City, the notices of hearing and subpoenas issued to the petitioners by the respondents are all annulled and set aside. The temporary restraining order which We issued on December 7, 1988, is hereby made permanent.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan (C .J .), Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Cortes, Medialdea and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Gancayco and Sarmiento, JJ., are on leave.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1989 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 40062 May 3, 1989 - MONTELIBANO ESGUERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36343 May 4, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JULIAN B. DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 47491 May 4, 1989 - GALICANO GOLLOY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 49677 May 4, 1989 - TRADE UNIONS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ALLIED SERVICES v. NATIONAL HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55336 May 4, 1989 - BENJAMIN VALLANGCA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76209 May 4, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77686 May 4, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEDAN ALEGARBES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84895 May 4, 1989 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45127 May 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45656 May 5, 1989 - PACIFIC BANKING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 62806 May 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO ISON

  • G.R. Nos. 63208-09 May 5, 1989 - CAMARA SHOES v. KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGGAGAWA SA CAMARA SHOES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70245 May 5, 1989 - ELEUTERIO DOMINGO v. ALFREDO A. ROSERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74453 May 5, 1989 - AMBROCIO VENGCO, ET AL. v. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 75896-99 May 5, 1989 - RENATO A. VALDEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76542 May 5, 1989 - ANIANO MATABUENA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77282 May 5, 1989 - ASSOCIATED LABOR UNIONS v. PURA FERRER-CALLEJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 78012 May 5, 1989 - DELTA MOTORS CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78871-72 May 5, 1989 - PACIFIC CEMENT COMPANY INC., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82363 May 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO M. SOLARES

  • G.R. No. 82768 May 5, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANECITO L. ESTEBAL

  • A.C. No. 3091 May 5, 1989 - ARSENIO REYES v. DANTE TINGA

  • G.R. No. L-40464 May 9, 1989 - POLICARPIO VISCA v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44588 May 9, 1989 - LAURA VELASCO, ET AL. v. SERGIO A. F. APOSTOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 61442 May 9, 1989 - MODESTO A. MAHINAY v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-63971 May 9, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICARDO C. ELESTERIO

  • G.R. No. 73854 May 9, 1989 - JOSE P. DE LA CONCEPCION v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-88-241 May 9, 1989 - LOURDES PADOLINA v. RUBEN L. HENSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 54445 May 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO NUNAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-68385 May 12, 1989 - ILDEFONSO O. ELEGADO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74075 May 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNABE MACASINAG

  • G.R. No. 74461 May 12, 1989 - JUAN ASONG v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 77588 May 12, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUNE C. SANCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 78277 May 12, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81006 May 12, 1989 - VICTORINO C. FRANCISCO v. WINAI PERMSKUL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82278 May 12, 1989 - EMELINDA SUNGA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82506 May 12, 1989 - CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF AUSTRALIA-PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL. v. AMADO P. PERALTA

  • G.R. No. 83748 May 12, 1989 - FLAVIO K. MACASAET & ASSOCIATES, INC. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33695 May 15, 1989 - MANUFACTURER’S BANK & TRUST CO. v. DIVERSIFIED INDUSTRIES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37165 May 15, 1989 - PRIMITIVO NEPOMUCENO v. BENJAMIN SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-47628 May 15, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO MANCILLA

  • G.R. No. L-48132 May 15, 1989 - LEONCIA FRANCISCO v. LAMBERTO B. MAGBITANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84712 May 15, 1989 - SEAHORSE MARITIME CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85749 May 15, 1989 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ANTONIO TUASON, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 86899-903 May 15, 1989 - AMOR D. DELOSO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 6484-Ret May 15, 1989 - IN RE: RETIREMENT OF JUSTICE RAMON B. BRITANICO

  • G.R. No. 76671 May 17, 1989 - SUSANA SALIDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 29759 May 18, 1989 - NATIVIDAD DEL ROSARIO VDA. DE ALBERTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51333 May 18, 1989 - RAMONA R. LOCSIN, ET AL. v. VICENTE P. VALENZUELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 70493 May 18, 1989 - GLAN PEOPLE’S LUMBER AND HARDWARE, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81314 May 18, 1989 - EAGLE SECURITY AGENCY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82318 May 18, 1989 - GILBERTO M. DUAVIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84051 May 19, 1989 - FRANCISCO BERGADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85815 May 19, 1989 - ELENO T. REGIDOR, JR., ET AL. v. WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84750 May 19, 1989 - BULIG-BULIG KITA KAMAGANAK ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. SULPICIO LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74291-93 May 23, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR LAMOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78290-94 May 23, 1989 - NATALIA REALTY CORPORATION v. PROTACIO RANCHU VALLEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81957 May 23, 1989 - PHILIPPINE VETERANS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80908 & 80909 May 24, 1989 - EMERITO M. RAMOS, SR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 63279 May 25, 1989 - NONITA C. BUENCONSEJO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 33166 May 29, 1989 - A.D. GUERRERO, ET AL. v. MERCEDES P. JUNTILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 67195 May 29, 1989 - HEIRS OF EUGENIA V. ROXAS, INC., ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76048 May 29, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO PIGON

  • G.R. No. 83376 May 29, 1989 - STRONGHOLD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 79902 May 30, 1989 - METRO MANILA TRANSIT CORPORATION v. CONCHITA C. MORALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82007 May 30, 1989 - FELIPE RELUCIO III, ET AL. v. CATALINO MACARAIG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 32836-37 May 31, 1989 - DANIEL VICTORIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-50974-75 May 31, 1989 - JUAN CASTRO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-53998 May 31, 1989 - ENRICO MALONZO, ET AL. v. HERMINIO MARIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-55372 May 31, 1989 - LETTY HAHN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 65589 May 31, 1989 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO SOMERA

  • G.R. No. 77231 May 31, 1989 - SAN JOSE CITY ELECTRIC SERVICE COOPERATIVE, INC. v. MINISTRY OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 80264 May 31, 1989 - SAN MIGUEL VILLAGE SCHOOL v. AMIR PUKUNUM D. PUNDOGAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84358 May 31, 1989 - RAMON CARENAN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 3086 May 31, 1989 - IN RE: BALTAZAR R. DIZON