GANZON, petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and LUIS T. SANTOS, respondents.
The petitioners take common issue on the power of the President (acting through the Secretary of Local Government), to suspend
andor remove local officials.
The petitioners are the !ayor of "loilo #ity (G.$. %os. &'()( and &)(*)) and a mem+er of the Sangguniang Panglunsod thereof (G.$.
%o. &',*-), respectively.
The petitions of !ayor Gan.on originated from a series of administrative complaints, ten in num+er, filed against him +y various city
officials sometime in /&00, on various charges, among them, a+use of authority, oppression, grave misconduct, disgraceful and
immoral conduct, intimidation, culpa+le violation of the #onstitution, and ar+itrary detention.
1
The personalities involved are 1oceleehn
#a+aluna, a clerk at the city health office2 Salvador #a+aluna, her hus+and2 3r. 4elicidad 5rtigo.a, 6ssistant #ity 7ealth 5fficer2
!ansueto !ala+or, 8ice9!ayor2 $olando 3a+ao, 3an 3alido, German Gon.ales, Larry 5ng, and :duardo Pefia $edondo mem+ers of
the Sangguniang Panglunsod2 and Pancho :r+ite, a +arangay tanod. The complaints against the !ayor are set forth in the opinion of
the respondent #ourt of 6ppeals.
2
;e <uote=
>>> >>> >>>
"n her verified complaint (6nne> 6), !rs. #a+aluna, a clerk assigned to the #ity 7ealth, 5ffice of "loilo #ity charged
that due to political reasons, having supported the rival candidate, !rs. $osa ?. #aram, the petitioner #ity !ayor,
using as an e>cuse the e>igency of the service and the interest of the pu+lic, pulled her out from rightful office where
her <ualifications are +est suited and assigned her to a work that should +e the function of a non9career service
employee. To make matters worse, a utility worker in the office of the Pu+lic Services, whose duties are alien to the
complainant@s duties and functions, has +een detailed to take her place. The petitioner@s act are pure harassments
aimed at luring her away from her permanent position or force her to resign.
"n the case of 3ra. 4elicidad 5rtigo.a, she claims that the petitioner handpicked her to perform task not +efitting her
position as 6ssistant #ity 7ealth 5fficer of "loilo #ity2 that her office was padlocked without any e>planation or
Austification2 that her salary was withheld without cause since 6pril /, /&002 that when she filed her vacation leave,
she was given the run9around treatment in the approval of her leave in connivance with 3r. $odolfo 8illegas and that
she was the o+Aect of a well9engineered trumped9up charge in an administrative complaint filed +y 3r. $odolfo
8illegas (6nne> B).
5n the other hand, !ansuelo !ala+or is the duly elected 8ice9!ayor of "loilo #ity and complainants $olando 3a+ao,
3an 3alido, German Gon.ales, Larry 5ng and :duardo Pefia Pedondo are mem+ers of the Sangguniang
Panglunsod of the #ity of "loilo. Their complaint arose out from the case where #ouncilor Larry 5ng, whose key to his
office was unceremoniously and without previous notice, taken +y petitioner. ;ithout an office, #ouncilor 5ng had to
hold office at Pla.a Li+ertad, The 8ice9!ayor and the other complainants sympathi.ed with him and decided to do the
same. 7owever, the petitioner, together with its fully9armed security men, forcefully drove them away from Pla.a
Li+ertad. #ouncilor 5ng denounced the petitioner@s actuations the following day in the radio station and decided to
hold office at the 4reedom Grandstand at "loilo #ity and there were so many people who gathered to witness the
incident. 7owever, +efore the group could reach the area, the petitioner, together with his security men, led the
firemen using a firetruck in do.ing water to the people and the +ystanders.
6nother administrative case was filed +y Pancho :r+ite, a +arangay tanod, appointed +y former mayor $osa 5.
#aram. 5n !arch /', /&00, without the +enefit of charges filed against him and no warrant of arrest was issued,
:r+ite was arrested and detained at the #ity 1ail of "loilo #ity upon orders of petitioner. "n Aail, he was allegedly
mauled +y other detainees there+y causing inAuries 7e was released only the following day.
3
The !ayor thereafter answered
4
and the cases were shortly set for hearing. The opinion of the #ourt of 6ppeals also set forth the
succeeding events=
>>> >>> >>>
The initial hearing in the #a+aluna and 5rtigo.a cases were set for hearing on 1une (?9(/, /&00 at the $egional
5ffice of the 3epartment of Local Government in "loilo #ity. %otices, through telegrams, were sent to the parties
(6nne> L) and the parties received them, including the petitioner. The petitioner asked for a postponement +efore the
scheduled date of hearing and was represented +y counsel, 6tty. Samuel #astro. The hearing officers, 6tty. Salvador
Cue+ral and 6tty. !arino Bermude. had to come all the way from !anila for the two9day hearings +ut was actually
held only on 1une (?,/&00 in view of the ina+ility and unpreparedness of petitioner@s counsel.
The ne>t hearings were re9set to 1uly (), (-, (,,/&00 in the same venue9"loilo #ity. 6gain, the petitioner attempted to
delay the proceedings and moved for a postponement under the e>cuse that he had Aust hired his counsel.
%onetheless, the hearing officers denied the motion to postpone, in view of the fact that the parties were notified +y
telegrams of the scheduled hearings (6nne> !).
"n the said hearings, petitioner@s counsel cross9e>amined the complainants and their witnesses.
4inding pro+a+le grounds and reasons, the respondent issued a preventive suspension order on 6ugust //, /&00 to
last until 5cto+er //,/&00 for a period of si>ty (-?) days.
Then the ne>t investigation was set on Septem+er (/, /&00 and the petitioner again asked for a postponement to
Septem+er (-,/&00. 5n Septem+er (-, /&00, the complainants and petitioner were present, together with their
respective counsel. The petitioner sought for a postponement which was denied. "n these hearings which were held
in !ala the petitioner testified in 6dm. #ase %o. #9/?(&0 and /?(&&.
The investigation was continued regarding the !ala+or case and the complainants testified including their witnesses.
5n 5cto+er /?, /&00, petitioner@s counsel, 6tty. 5riginal moved for a postponement of the 5cto+er (*, /&00 hearing
to %ovem+er , to //, /&00 which was granted. 7owever, the motion for change of venue as denied due to lack of
funds. 6t the hearing on %ovem+er ,, /&00, the parties and counsel were present. Petitioner reiterated his motion to
change venue and moved for postponement anew. The counsel discussed a proposal to take the deposition of
witnesses in "loilo #ity so the hearing was indefinitely postponed. 7owever, the parties failed to come to terms and
after the parties were notified of the hearing, the investigation was set to 3ecem+er /' to /), /&00.
The petitioner sought for another postponement on the ground that his witnesses were sick or cannot attend the
investigation due to lack of transportation. The motion was denied and the petitioner was given up to 3ecem+er /*,
/&00 to present his evidence.
5n 3ecem+er /*,/&00, petitioner@s counsel insisted on his motion for postponement and the hearing officers gave
petitioner up to 3ecem+er /), /&00 to present his evidence. 5n 3ecem+er /), /&00, the petitioner failed to present
evidence and the cases were considered su+mitted for resolution.
"n the meantime, a prima facie evidence was found to e>ist in the ar+itrary detention case filed +y Pancho :r+ite so
the respondent ordered the petitioner@s second preventive suspension dated 5cto+er //, /&00 for another si>ty (-?)
days. The petitioner was a+le to o+tain a restraining order and a writ of preliminary inAunction in the $egional Trial
#ourt, Branch '' of "loilo #ity. The second preventive suspension was not enforced.
5
6midst the two successive suspensions, !ayor Gan.on instituted an action for prohi+ition against the respondent Secretary of Local
Government (now, "nterior) in the $egional Trial #ourt, "loilo #ity, where he succeeded in o+taining a writ of preliminary inAunction.
Presently, he instituted #69G.$. SP %o. /-*/,, an action for prohi+ition, in the respondent #ourt of 6ppeals.
!eanwhile, on !ay ', /&&?, the respondent Secretary issued another order, preventively suspending !ayor Gan.on for another si>ty
days, the third time in twenty months, and designating meantime 8ice9!ayor !ansueto !ala+or as acting mayor. Dndaunted, !ayor
Gan.on commenced #69G.$. SP %o. (?,'- of the #ourt of 6ppeals, a petition for prohi+ition,
6
(!ala+or it is to +e noted, is one of the
complainants, and hence, he is interested in seeing !ayor Gan.on ousted.)
5n Septem+er ,, /&0&, the #ourt of 6ppeals rendered Audgment, dismissing #69G.$. SP %o. /-*/,. 5n 1uly ), /&&?, it likewise
promulgated a decision, dismissing #69G.$. SP %o. (?,'-. "n a $esolution dated 1anuary (*, /&&?, it issued a $esolution certifying
the petition of !ary 6nn 6rtieda, who had +een similary charged +y the respondent Secretary, to this #ourt.
5n 1une (-,/&&?, we issued a Temporary $estraining 5rder, +arring the respondent Secretary from implementing the suspension
orders, and restraining the enforcement of the #ourt of 6ppeals@ two decisions.
"n our $esolution of %ovem+er (&, /&&?, we consolidated all three cases. "n our $esolutions of 1anuary /), /&&/, we gave due course
thereto.
!ayor Gan.on claims as a preliminary (G$ %o. &'()(), that the 3epartment of Local Government in hearing the ten cases against him,
had denied him due process of law and that the respondent Secretary had +een E+iased, preAudicial and hostileE towards him
7
arising
from his (!ayor Gan.on@s) alleged refusal to Aoin the La+an ng 3emokratikong Pilipino party