Ombudsman files complaint vs. 7 CA justices over TRO

The Office of the Ombudsman on Friday filed a complaint against seven justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) for issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO) on a preventive suspension order against eight members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Antique.

In a 9-page complaint, the Ombudsman accused Associate Justices Louis Acosta, Marlene Gonzales-Sison, Rex Bernardo Pascual, Mary Charlene Hernandez-Azura, Roberto Quiroz, Rafael Antonio Santos, and Ferdinand Baylon of gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

The complaint was filed before the Supreme Court Judicial Integrity Board.

“When the inefficiency springs from a failure to recognize such a basic and elemental rule, a law or principle in the discharge of his functions, a judge is either too incompetent undeserving of the position and the prestigious title he holds or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith, and in grave abuse of judicial authority,” it said.

“In both cases, the judge’s dismissal will be in order,” it added.

According to the Ombudsman, it ordered a six-month preventive suspension against eight members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Antique.

It said the suspension order was issued on August 1, 2024 and was fully implemented by August 5, 2024.

On October 3, it said the eight officials filed a petition for certiorari with the application for TRO and/ or writ of preliminary injunction before the appellate court.

“Despite the fact that the preventive suspension had already been fully implemented, the CA Fourth Division composed of respondent Justices Acosta, Gonzales-Sison, and Pascual issued a resolution… granting the petitioners’ prayer for TRO and enjoining the implementation of ‘an already implemented’ preventive suspension order,” the Ombudsman said.

Following this, the Ombudsman said the CA Special Fourth Division — composed of Acosta, Gonzales-Sison, and Hernandez-Azura, issued a writ of preliminary injunction after the expiration of the TRO on December 18.

Meanwhile, it said that Quiroz, Santos, and Baylon granted the local officials’ petition for certiorari and nullified and set aside the preventive suspension order of the Ombudsman.

“It is a well-settled rule that where, as here, the petitioner has available remedies within the administrative machinery against the action of an administrative board, body, or officer, the intervention of the courts can be resorted to by him only after having exhausted all such remedies,” the Ombudsman said.

“The rationale of this rule rests upon the presumption that the administrative body, if given the chance to correct its mistake or error, may amend its decision on a given matter and decide it properly,” it added.—LDF, GMA Integrated News