Not being a penalty, the period within which one is under preventive suspension is not considered part of the actual penalty of suspension.
Petitioner Quimbo, Provincial Engineer of Samar, was placed under preventive suspension without pay after he was administratively charged for harassment and oppression. The Ombudsman found him guilty of oppression and ordered his suspension for 8 months without pay. The Court of Appeals, however, found him guilty of simple misconduct only and penalized him with 2 months suspension without pay. Quimbo filed a Motion for Modification/Reconsideration praying that he should no longer be required to serve the penalty of 2 months suspension without pay, he having priorly served preventive suspension for more than 2 months. He argued that he should not be punished twice nor be made to suffer the suspension penalty after he had served the same (although in a preventive suspension).
May the period within which one is under preventive suspension be credited to form part of the final penalty of suspension?
Issue:
May the period within which one is under preventive suspension be credited to form part of the final penalty of suspension?
Held:
No. There is a clear-cut distinction between suspension as preventive measure and suspension as penalty.
Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him. If after such investigation, the charge is established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his suspension or removal, then he is suspended, removed or dismissed. This is the penalty.
That preventive suspension is not a penalty is in fact explicitly provided by Section 24 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws.
Since the law explicitly prescribes the rules on crediting of preventive suspension to the final penalty of suspension, petitioners invocation of equity may not lie. (Quimbo vs. Gervacio, G.R. No. 155620. August 9, 2005)
No. There is a clear-cut distinction between suspension as preventive measure and suspension as penalty.
Preventive suspension is merely a preventive measure, a preliminary step in an administrative investigation. The purpose of the suspension order is to prevent the accused from using his position and the powers and prerogatives of his office to influence potential witnesses or tamper with records which may be vital in the prosecution of the case against him. If after such investigation, the charge is established and the person investigated is found guilty of acts warranting his suspension or removal, then he is suspended, removed or dismissed. This is the penalty.
That preventive suspension is not a penalty is in fact explicitly provided by Section 24 of Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws.
SEC. 24. Preventive suspension is not a punishment or penalty for misconduct in office but is considered to be a preventive measure.Not being a penalty, the period within which one is under preventive suspension is not considered part of the actual penalty of suspension. So Section 25 of the same Rule XIV provides:
SEC. 25. The period within which a public officer or employee charged is placed under preventive suspension shall not be considered part of the actual penalty of suspension imposed upon the employee found guilty.Clearly, service of the preventive suspension cannot be credited as service of penalty. To rule otherwise is to disregard above-quoted Sections 24 and 25 of the Administrative Code of 1987 and render nugatory the substantial distinction between, and purposes of imposing preventive suspension and suspension as penalty.
Since the law explicitly prescribes the rules on crediting of preventive suspension to the final penalty of suspension, petitioners invocation of equity may not lie. (Quimbo vs. Gervacio, G.R. No. 155620. August 9, 2005)
0 Comments
Post a Comment