ILOILO City – Ombudsman Samuel Martires has filed an administrative complaint against seven justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) before the Judicial Integrity Board, accusing them of gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The complaint, filed on March 21, named the following CA associate justices as respondents:
* Louis P. Acosta
* Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison
* Rex Bernardo L. Pascual
* Mary Charlene V. Hernandez-Azura
* Roberto P. Quiroz
* Rafael Antonio M. Santos
* Ferdinand C. Baylon
Martires’ action stems from the CA’s issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) that halted the implementation of a six-month preventive suspension order against eight members of Antique’s Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP).
The Ombudsman ordered their suspension on August 1, 2024, over allegations of grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of public officers.
The SP members are Egidio P. Elio, Rony L. Molina, Victor R. Condez, Alfie Jay Niquia, Plaridel E. Sanchez IV, Mayella Mae P. Ladislao, Keneth Dave B. Gasalao, and Julius Cezar O. Tajanlangit.
They were suspended without pay over their alleged failure to pass a supplemental provincial budget amounting to P1.075 billion.
In its Nov. 7, 2024 resolution, the CA’s Fourth Division granted the TRO sought by the SP members, stating that suspending elected officials without a solid basis could inflict irreparable injury on the electorate, which is deprived of its representation.
The resolution was penned by Justice Acosta.
“Considering that the possible prejudice or damage caused to an electorate which is summarily deprived of its duly elected representatives is not susceptible to pecuniary estimation, it then ineluctably follows that the suspension… constitutes an irreparable injury which could be the proper subject of a TRO,” the CA resolution stated.
The appellate court emphasized the potential “grave and deleterious effects” on public service and governance in Antique if the suspension were to be enforced, noting that the officials were still facing ongoing investigations.
However, in his five-page complaint, Martires accused the CA justices of acting in grave abuse of discretion and ignoring fundamental legal principles. He argued that the TROs should not have been issued because the act — suspension — was already implemented before the petitions for relief were filed.
“Again, if the elemental doctrine that no injunction should issue to restrain an act already done still applies, doubtless, respondent justices gravely abused their discretion and worse, displayed gross ignorance of the law in issuing the TROs,” Martires said.
He further pointed out that the suspended officials failed to attach certified true copies of the suspension orders in their petitions, which should have been grounds for outright dismissal.
“The justices… precipitately gave due course to the petitions and simply closed their eyes or glossed over this fundamental requirement,” the Ombudsman alleged.
Martires concluded that such failures on the part of the justices reflect either incompetence or willful disregard of the law.
“When the inefficiency springs from a failure to recognize such a basic and elemental rule… a judge is either too incompetent… or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith, and in grave abuse of judicial authority,” he asserted./PN