Hagad vs.

Gozo-Dadole
G.R. No. 108072 December 12, 1995

Facts: On July 22, 1992, criminal and administrative complaints were filed against
respondents Mayor Ouano, Vice Mayor Canete and Councilor Mayol, all public
officials of Mandaue City by Councilors Dionson, Baricede. Said respondents were
charged with having violated R.A. No. 3019, as amended, Articles 170 and 171 of
the Revised Penal Code; and R.A. No. 6713. Respondent officials were allegedly
causing alteration of Ordinance No. 018/92 by increasing the allotted appropriation
from P3.5M to P7M without authority from Sangguniang Panlungsod of Mandaue.

Respondent officials prayed for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that
the Ombudsman supposedly was bereft of jurisdiction to try, hear and decide the
administrative case filed against them since, under Section 63 of the Local
Government Code of 1991, the power to investigate and impose administrative
sanctions against said local officials, as well as to effect their preventive suspension,
had now been vested with the Office of the President. On September 1992, a TRO
against Hagad was filed and granted to the petitioners by RTC Mandaue to restrain
him from enforcing suspension.

Issue: Whether the Ombudsman under RA 6770 has been divested of his authority
to conduct administrative investigations over local elective official by virtue of
subsequent enactment of RA 7160?

Held: No. The authority of the Ombudsman over local officials pursuant to RA 6770
is not removed by LG Code of 1991. There is nothing in the Local Government Code
to indicate that it has repealed, whether expressly or impliedly, the pertinent
provisions of the Ombudsman Act. The two statutes on the specific matter in
question are not so inconsistent, let alone irreconcilable, as to compel us to only
uphold one and strike down the other.

Well settled is the rule that repeals of laws by implication are not favored, 16 and
that courts must generally assume their congruent application. The two laws must
be absolutely incompatible, and a clear finding thereof must surface, before the
inference of implied repeal may be drawn. The rule is expressed in the maxim,
interpretare et concordare legibus est optimus interpretendi, i.e., every statute
must be so interpreted and brought into accord with other laws as to form a uniform
system of jurisprudence. The fundament is that the legislature should be presumed
to have known the existing laws on the subject and not to have enacted conflicting
statutes. Hence, all doubts must be resolved against any implied repeal, and all
efforts should be exerted in order to harmonize and give effect to all laws on the
subject.

The authority to conduct administrative investigation and to impose preventive

suspension over elective provincial or city officials was at that time entrusted to the
Minister of Local Government until it became concurrent with the Ombudsman upon
the enactment of R.A. No. 6770, specifically under Sections 21 and 24 thereof, to
the extent of the common grant. The Local Government Code of 1991 (R.A. No.
7160), in fine, did not effect a change from what already prevailed, the modification
being only in the substitution of the Secretary (the Minister) of Local Government by
the Office of the President.