G.R. No. 169888 - RAMON Y. TALAGA, JR., CITY MAYOR, LUCENA CITY, VS. HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, 4TH DIVISION, AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the prosecution's motion for suspension pendente lite is hereby GRANTED, and accused Ramon Y. Talaga, Jr., Godofredo V. Faller, Danilo R. Zaballero, Salome S. Dato, Simon N. Aldovino, Wilfredo F. Asilo, and Aurora C. Garcia are hereby directed to CEASE and DESIST from further performing and/or exercising the functions, duties, and privileges of their positions as City Mayor, and City Councilors of Lucena City, respectively, or any other positions they may now or hereafter be holding effective immediately upon receipt hereof and continuing for a total period of ninety (90) days. [17] Petitioner then filed the present petition for certiorari with an urgent application for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order on November 9, 2005 enjoining public respondents from implementing the suspension of petitioner. [18] Assailing his suspension, petitioner alleges: I THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT C OMM ITTED GRAVE A BUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IN ABDICATION OF ITS CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO RESOLVE A JUDICIAL CONTROVERSY, IT IS MINISTERIAL DUTY TO ISSUE A PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION ORDER AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND THERE ARE NO IFS AND BUTS ABOUT IT. II ASSUMING THAT THE ISSUANCE OF THE PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION IS MANDATORY, THE HON ORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO EXCESS OR LACK OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED THE SUSPENSION OF THE PETITIONER AS SECTION 13 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019, WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT IMPINGES UPON THE EXCLUSIVE PREROGATIVE OF THE JUDICIARY. III THE HONOR ABLE SANDIGANBAYAN C OMM ITED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION WHEN IT ORDERED THE SUSPENSION OF HEREIN PETITIONER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE EXISTS NO VALID INFORMATION UNDER WHICH PETITIONER STANDS CHARGED. [19] The petition is devoid of merit. Petitioner argues that respondent committed grave abuse of discretion when in imposing the sanction of suspension, it only relied on the "mandatory" provision of Section 13 insensate to the weight and cogency of the peculiar circumstances of the case before it. [20] Moreover, petitioner argues that the bare reliance of respondent on Section 13 without calibrating the weight of diverse and dueling evidence pertinent to the issue of appropriateness of ordering his suspension is a clear abdication of respondent's constitutional duty to exercise its judicial function. [21] In addition, petitioner contends that respondent should have looked into the "environmental circumstances" of the case and thus it was unwarranted to apply the presumption in Bolastig v. Sandiganbayan [22] that unless the accused is suspended, he may frustrate or commit further acts of malfeasance or do both. Petitioner asks this Court to first look into the circumstances of the case and th