YABUT vs OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN lifting of his preventive suspension.
(2) 20 May 1993: Preventive suspension order
G.R. No. 111304 | June 17, 1994 | Vitug
CBPT | Preventative Suspension
Case Summary: Because of a fight between Vice Mayor Yabut and Paul Doran during
a traffic incident, Yabut and his security aide Tamargo were found guilty of simple
misconduct and oppression in the performance of duties. Ombudsman recommended
2 months suspension without pay as penalty. SC upheld such finding and reiterated the
rule that preventative suspension can’t be “credited” as service of the penalty.
DOCTRINE: A preventive suspension decreed by the Ombudsman is not meant
to be a penalty but a means taken to insure the proper and impartial conduct of
an investigation.
FACTS:
 Traffic assault incident, 16 Feb 1993: Petitioner Nemesio Arturo S. Yabut, Makati
Vice Mayor and commander of the Traffic Management Division, was directing
traffic (intersection of Gil Puyat Ave. and Makati Ave.) when the controversy arose.
Ttraffic was unusually heavy that day because of re-routing from the
Edsa-Pioneer-Boni area. Respondent Paul Doran, (US national, PH permanent
resident) wanted to make a left turn to Gil Puyat otwards Pasay City. But priority
was given to vehicles coming from Mandaluyong, so Doran and others were made
to wait. When the “go” signal was finally given, Doran stopped to talk to Yabut.
Doran: “Why (it took) so long to make a left turn?”
Yabut: “Sorry, sir, its traffic.”
Doran: “Who the hell are you?” (with “a dirty finger sign” at Yabut)
The argument became a fistfight. Yabut’s traffic officers joined the fray – pulling
Doran out from his car and beaten until 3 men rescued him. Both Yabut and Doran
suffered injuries as a result of the scuffle.
 Doran’s complaint; Yabut’s preventative suspension: (1) 22 Feb 1993: Doran
filed a complaint against Yabut before the NBI. (2) 24 Feb 1993: NBI summoned
Yabut to appear before its Anti-Organized Crime Division (AOCD). Yabut asked
for 5 days to file counter-affidavits, but only got 2 days. (3) 26 Feb 1993: Yabut
filed his own affidavit and that of his witnesses. NBI indorsed the case to Office of
the Ombudsman, which promptly imposed a 90-day preventive suspension on
Yabut. (4) 02 Mar 1993: Yabut filed MR on the suspension order. (5) 12 Mar 1993:
Ombudsman, through Overall Deputy Ombudsman Francisco Villa resolved the
motion in an Order which impleaded Ricardo Tamargo (Yabut’s security) who had
shot at 2 of Doran’s tires during the traffic incident (which he stated in his witness
affidavit for Yabut) and provided the resolution Yabut’s motion to lift suspension
order be held in abeyance until and after the respective pleadings/evidence of the
parties have been submitted. Thereafter, parties submitted their respective
evidence consisting of the sworn statements.
 Proceedings in administrative case: (1) 19 May 1993: During the preliminary
conference, parties agreed to submit the case for resolution. Yabut moved for the
lifted. Parties were each given 15 days to submit their memoranda. (3) 03 Jun
1993: Yabut and Tamargo filed their memorandum; Doran decided not to file any.
(4) 28 Jun 1993: Investigating officer Amy Ana de Villa-Rosero submitted the
questioned Resolution containing her findings and recommendation. The
resolution was approved by the Overall Deputy Ombudsman.
o Petitioners found guilty of simple misconduct and oppression in the
performance of official duties, recommending the penalty of a 2-month
suspension from office, without pay.
Yabut filed a “Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration.” (5) 29 Jul 1993:
Office of the Ombudsman issued Order denying the motion.
 SC Petition: Yabut argues: Ombudsman (1) misappreciated the evidence; (2)
erred in not crediting the period of preventive suspension; and (3) erred in imposing
the penalty of two-month suspension from office, without pay, for not being
commensurate with the bare finding of simple misconduct.
ISSUE(S):
 (1) WON Ombudsman incorrectly found petitioners guilty – NO; (2) WON
preventative suspension should be counted as satisfying the penalty – NO
RULING:
 Court called traffic incident “unfortunate” and said attendant circumstances caused
tempers to rise and patience to break. “No excuse for the mauling and shooting
incidents that followed.” Doran’s act of provocation in the words of petitioners was
no less than “an act of spite, degradation and mockery.” However, it didn’t justify
an equally abhorrent reaction from petitioners. Petitioners were public officers;
Doran was not.
o OSG: “A public official, more especially an elected one, should not be onion skinned.
Strict personal discipline is expected of an occupant of a public office because a public
official is a property of the public. He is looked upon to set the example how public
officials should correctly conduct themselves even in the face of extreme provocation.
Always he is expected to act and serve with the highest degree of responsibility,
integrity, loyalty and efficiency and shall remain accountable for his conduct to the
people.”
 On whether preventive suspension of 82 days should be credited to the penalty of
2-month suspension imposed? A preventive suspension decreed by the
Ombudsman by virtue of his authority under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6770,
in relation to Section 9 of Administrative Order No. 07, is not meant to be a penalty
but a means taken to insure the proper and impartial conduct of an investigation.
We have ruled, in a number of times before, that a preventive suspension may be
ordered even before the charges are heard, as well as before the official concerned
is given an opportunity to prove his innocence, being merely a measure that is
precisely designed in order not to hamper the normal course of an investigation
through the use of influence and authority.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit.