OMB v.

Evangelista | 581 SCRA 350

FACTS: Priscila Villanueva, co-chair of the Local School Board (LSB) of Aguirre, Pangasinan, filed an
administrative case with the Ombudsman against Mayor Evangelista, municipal treasurer Melican, and
municipal accountant Limos. She alleged that the three made use of the Special Education Fund (SEF) to
purchase speech kits and textbooks without the authorization of the LSB and that the said speech kits and
textbooks were not even received by the recipient schools. Villanueva also prayed for the preventive suspension
of the three. Without furnishing the respondents with a copy of the complaint, the Ombudsman issued an Order
preventively suspending them for four (4) months, without pay.
The respondents filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the
preventive suspension order by the Ombudsman on the following grounds: (1) the Order was issued without
compliance with Sec. 26 of the Ombudsman Act which requires that the respondents be informed of the charges
against them; (2) there was haste in the issuance of the Order since the Ombudsman did not await the
recommendation of his deputy. Thus, the Ombudsman filed a Rule 65 certiorari with the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Whether a preventive suspension order may issue even without notifying the respondent in an
administrative case of the charge/s against him
RULING: Yes. The appellate court strangely juxtaposed the requisites found in Section 26 of R.A. No. 6770
governing inquiries by the Ombudsman with those found in Section 24 of the same law. Section 24 does not
require that notice of the charges against the accused must precede an order meting out preventive suspension.
While a preventive suspension order may stem from a complaint, the Ombudsman is not required to furnish the
respondent with a copy of the complaint prior to ordering preventive suspension. The requisites for the
Ombudsman to issue a preventive suspension order are clearly contained in Section 24 of R.A. No. 6770. The
appellate court cannot alter these requirements by insisting that the preventive suspension order also meet the
requisites found in Section 26 of the same law.