CA voids Ombudsman’s suspension order vs Antique officials

The Court of Appeals (CA) has invalidated the Office of the Ombudsman’s six-month preventive suspension order issued in August 2024 against eight Antique provincial board members over an administrative complaint related to alleged delays in the passage of the province’s supplemental budget.

In a decision dated June 16, 2025, penned by Associate Justice Louis Acosta, the CA ruled that the Ombudsman’s order failed to establish that the board members acted in bad faith when they raised various objections to the supplemental budget and deleted three items from it.

The appellate court declared the order to be without legal effect and said the board members are entitled to back salaries and benefits for the period during which they were not paid due to the suspension.

To recall, the court in November issued a temporary restraining order against the suspension of Board Members Egidio Elio, Rony Molina, Victor Condez, Alfie Jay Niquia, Plaridel Sanchez IV, Mayella Mae Ladislao, Kenneth Dave Gasalao, and Julius Cedar Tajanlangit, and directed their reinstatement.

A writ of preliminary injunction was issued in December against their preventive suspension.

The Office of the Ombudsman then challenged the CA’s orders before the Supreme Court in February.

In March, the Ombudsman found the board members guilty of grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of a public officer and suspended them from service without pay for one year.

With this, the CA noted that the case appears to have become moot and academic.

The CA said the propriety of the issuance of the order remains a justiciable issue because the officers can be entitled to back pay if their preventive suspension is found to be baseless.

It further said there was no justification for its finding that there was strong evidence of guilt against the board members.

The CA said, “All told, this Court believes that it was evidently whimsical and arbitrary for the Ombudsman to have ordered the preventive suspension of herein petitioners without sufficiently stating the justification therefor.”

It added there is a presumption of regularity in the actions of the board members, which prevails unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

The CA said that in this case, it was difficult to ascribe bad faith to the actions of the board members without any showing of the rule they supposedly violated.

Also, the CA noted that the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order failed to show that the conduct of the board members constitutes disorderly behavior or reproachable conduct within legislative proceedings.

It said that it would be highly speculative to pass judgment about the presence of bad faith in this case.

Likewise, the CA said the order fails to specifically point to any rule of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan that would remotely define an “unreasonable delay” within the context of its legislative proceedings, which, in turn, could be considered as reproachable conduct with respect to its budget preparation and enactment.