Primary Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Ombudsman's preventive suspension orders are immediately executory, the Ombudsman's disciplinary authority is not merely recommendatory but includes ensuring compliance, and RA 6770 does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority or violate the equal protection clause.

Background

Dr. Pedro Gobenciong, an administrative officer at a regional hospital, was administratively charged for falsification of public documents and misconduct related to the allegedly anomalous purchase of a hemoanalyzer, leading to preventive suspension and subsequent disciplinary action by the Ombudsman.

Facts

• 1. Gobenciong was an Administrative Officer IV at the Eastern Visayas Regional Medical Center (EVRMC).
• 2. A requisition was made for a hemoanalyzer, and after public bidding, Alvez Commercial, Inc. was selected.
• 3. Documents indicated delivery and acceptance of the hemoanalyzer, but later, Alvez informed EVRMC that the hemoanalyzer would be replaced due to being slightly defective.
• 4. Dr. Flora dela Peña filed an administrative complaint alleging falsification of documents and misconduct due to the circumstances surrounding the purchase and delivery of the hemoanalyzer.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The implementation of the preventive suspension order was illegal because he filed a motion for reconsideration, which should have stayed the order's execution.
• 2. The TRO issued by the Court of Appeals was defied.
• 3. The implementation of the preventive suspension violated his rights to due process and equal protection.
• 4. RA 6770 is unconstitutional insofar as it grants the Ombudsman overly broad powers.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The Constitution empowers the Ombudsman to exercise administrative disciplinary authority over public officials.
• 2. RA 6770 constitutionally grants the Ombudsman full administrative disciplinary authority.
• 3. The disciplinary authority includes determining the penalty and ensuring its implementation.
• 4. The Tapiador case's statement on the Ombudsman's authority is merely an obiter dictum.

Issues

• 1. Is a preventive suspension order from the Ombudsman immediately executory despite a pending motion for reconsideration?
• 2. Is the disciplinary power of the Ombudsman merely recommendatory?
• 3. Is RA 6770 unconstitutional for undue delegation of legislative authority or violation of the equal protection clause?

Ruling

• 1. The Court ruled against Gobenciong on all points, upholding the Ombudsman's authority.
• 2. The preventive suspension order is immediately executory.
• 3. The Ombudsman's disciplinary authority is not merely recommendatory.
• 4. RA 6770 is not unconstitutional.

Doctrines

• 1. Repeals by Implication are not Favored: Laws are presumed to be passed with full knowledge of existing legislation, and repeals require irreconcilable inconsistency.
• 2. Equal Protection Clause: Guarantees against undue favor, individual privilege, and hostile discrimination, but does not require absolute equality; allows classifications with substantial distinctions.
• 3. *Obiter Dictum*: A statement made in passing that is not essential to the ruling and not binding precedent.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "All provisionary orders of the Office of the Ombudsman are immediately effective and executory."
• 2. "The Office of the Ombudsman is a creature of the Constitution...to carry out its mandate as protector of the people against the inept, abusive, and corrupt in the Government."

Precedents Cited

• 1. Tapiador v. Office of the Ombudsman: Distinguished as the statement regarding the Ombudsman's authority being recommendatory was considered obiter dictum.
• 2. Ledesma v. Court of Appeals and Office of the Ombudsman v. Court of Appeals: Clarified that the Tapiador case should not be interpreted as limiting the Ombudsman's power to impose administrative sanctions.
• 3. Garcia v. Mojica: Affirmed the authority of the Deputy Ombudsman to issue preventive suspension orders.
• 4. Miranda v. Sandiganbayan: Addressed the issue of equal protection, finding substantial distinctions between preventive suspensions by the Ombudsman and executive officials.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Republic Act No. 6770 (The Ombudsman Act of 1989), Sections 24, 27, 15(1), 19, 21, 24 and 25: Discusses preventive suspension, effectivity of decisions, and powers of the Ombudsman.
• 2. 1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 13: Defines the powers, functions, and duties of the Office of the Ombudsman.
• 3. Ombudsman Rules of Procedure, Section 8, Rule III: Details the procedure for motions for reconsideration or reinvestigation.