SUSPENSION STANDOFF: Ombudsman Sues 7 Justices Before SC Over Antique SP Case

By Rjay Zuriaga Castor

The Office of the Ombudsman has filed a complaint against seven Court of Appeals (CA) justices before the Supreme Court (SC) over alleged gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Ombudsman Samuel Martires personally filed the complaint on Friday, March 31, with the SC’s Judicial Integrity Board, which was established to receive and act on administrative complaints against justices and judiciary officials.

Named in the complaint are CA Associate Justices Louis P. Acosta, Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison, Rex Bernardo L. Pascual, Mary Charlene V. Hernandez-Azura, Roberto P. Quiroz, Rafael Antonio M. Santos, and Ferdinand C. Baylon.

The case stems from the appellate court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in November 2024, which blocked the preventive suspension of eight Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) members of Antique.

In August 2024, the Ombudsman ordered a six-month preventive suspension without pay against the SP officials, citing strong evidence of guilt.

The administrative complaint was filed in July 2024 and accused the SP officials of grave misconduct, oppression, and gross neglect of duty over their failure to act on a supplemental budget amounting to PHP1.075 billion.

Under the six-month suspension, the officials were expected to return to office by February 2025.

However, the CA’s Fourth Division issued a TRO, preventing the Ombudsman from enforcing the suspension and allowing the officials to return to office while proceedings continued.

In a nine-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Louis Acosta, the court cited the potential “grave and deleterious effects” of the suspension on the residents of Antique.

In a subsequent ruling on March 10, the Ombudsman again suspended the eight SP officials after finding them guilty of grave abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and conduct unbecoming of a public officer.

The charge of gross neglect of duty was dismissed for lack of merit.

The Ombudsman imposed a one-year suspension without pay as a penalty.

If the officials cannot be suspended due to retirement or separation from service, they will instead be fined an amount equivalent to one year of their basic salary, payable to the Office of the Ombudsman.