G.R. NO. 155620 - PRUDENCIO QUIMBO, VS. ACTING OMBUDSMAN MARGARITO GERVACIO AND DIRECTRESS MARY SUSAN S. GUILLERMO OF THE OMBUDSMAN OFFICE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly be penalized." The order for the implementation of its decision, as modified by the appellate court, was thus reiterated in the letter. Unperturbed, petitioner, via certiorari, assailed before the Court of Appeals the Office of the Ombudsman's denial of his plea to be considered having served the modified penalty. By Resolution dated October 2, 2002, [12] the Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's petition for certiorari, it affirming the Ombudsman's ruling that preventive suspension pending investigation is not a penalty. Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari raising as sole issue whether the appellate court committed reversible error when it dismissed his petition. Petitioner contends in the affirmative, he arguing that the dismissal of his petition is "in violation of the doctrine enunciated in Gloria v. Court of Appeals [13] and the rule on equity that a person should not be punished twice nor be made to suffer the suspension penalty after [he] had [served] the same (although in a preventive suspension)." [14] The petition fails. Jurisprudential law [15] establishes a clear-cut distinction between suspension as preventive measure and suspension as penalty . The distinction, by considering the purpose aspect of the suspensions, is readily cognizable as they have different ends sought to be achieved. 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. [16] 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. [17] 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. (Emphasis supplied). 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. (Emphasis supplied). 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 pu