ELENO T. REGIDOR, JR. ANICETO T. SIETE, CAMILO B. ZAPATOS & RODULFO ENRIQUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. GOV. WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN, VICE GOV. FLORENCIO GARCIA, SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN, MEM…

This petition for prohibition with a prayer for the issuance of
temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction was filed by the
petitioners who are the duly elected city officials of Tangub City
in Misamis Occidental.  Eleno T. Regidor was elected City Mayor of Tangub
City, the other petitioners, Aniceto T. Siete, Camilo B. Zapatos and Rodulfo Enriquez, are
respectively the Vice-Mayor and members of the Sangguniang
Panglunsod of Tangub City,
who were elected in the January 18, 1988 local elections, were proclaimed in
due course, and assumed office.

On November 3, 1988, respondents William Chiongbian
and Florencio Garcia, Marivic
Sagrado, Morpheus Agot, Constancio Balais, Alegria Cariño, Ernesto Ira, Pacita Yap,
and Julio Tiu, who are respectively the Provincial
Governor, the Vice-Governor, and members of the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan, approved Resolution No. 340-88
recommending the suspension of the petitioners who failed to appear on November
18, 1988 at the hearing of a complaint for unspecified misconduct which
respondent Robert O. Taclob filed against them in the
office of the Governor and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.

Pursuant to that resolution, Governor William Chiongbian
issued on November 24, 1988 an Order of Preventive Suspension, suspending the
petitioners “from their elective positions as City Mayor, City Vice-Mayor
and Sangguniang Panglunsod
members of Tangub City for a period of 60 days
effective November 25, 1988″ and ordering them to “cease and desist
from performing the functions and duties” of their respective offices
(Annex D, p. 10, Rollo).

On the same day, Governor Chiongbian
appointed Taclob, a member of the Sangguniang
Panglunsod of Tangub City,
as Officer-in-Charge of Tangub City in lieu of Mayor Eleno T. Regidor (Annex E, p. 11,
Rollo).  Taclob belongs to the governor’s political faction while Regidor and the other petitioner’s belong to the rival
faction of Alfonso Tan, the defeated opponent of respondent Chiongbian
for the governorship of Misamis Occidental.

The petition alleges that respondents Governor Chiongbian and the Sangguniang Panlalawigan acted without authority, and contrary to law,
in issuing the Order of Preventive Suspension against the petitioners because
under Section 63 of the Local Government Code, a provincial or city official
may be preventively suspended by the Minister of Local Government, not
by the Provincial Governor.

Upon receipt of the petition, this Court issued a temporary
restraining order commanding the respondents to “cease and desist from
implementing or enforcing Resolution No. 340-88 dated November 23, 1988 and
Preventive Suspension Order dated November 24, 1988, and enjoining respondent
Robert O. Taclob from assuming the position of OIC
Mayor of Tangub City” (pp. 14-16, Rollo).

In their comment on the petition, the respondents justified the
suspension of the petitioners as a valid exercise of the Provincial Governor’s
power of general supervision over a component city (Par. 6.4, Section 1, Rule 4
of the Implementing Rules & Regulations of the Local Government Code), and
that it was done “in pursuance to (sic) the provisions of the Local Government
Code and the Rules & Regulations implementing said law.” (p. 25, Rollo.)

However, the pertinent provisions of the Local Government Code
and the Implementing Rules and Regulations thereof do not sustain the
respondents’ contention in this case.

Section 61 of the Local Government Code provides that complaints
against elective provincial or city officials should be verified and should
be filed before the Minister of Local Government.

Section 63 provides that the Minister of Local Government may
impose a preventive suspension against the accused elective provincial or city
official, thus:

“Sec. 63.  Preventive Suspension.
– (1) Preventive suspension may be imposed by the Minister of Local
Government if the respondent is a provincial or city official, by the
provincial governor if the respondent is an elective municipal official, or by
the city or municipal mayor if the respondent is an elective barangay official.

“(2)  Preventive
suspension may be imposed at any time after the issues are joined, when there
is reasonable ground to  believe that the
respondent has committed the act or acts complained of, when the evidence of
culpability is strong, when the gravity of the offense so warrants, when the
continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a
threat to the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence.  In all cases, preventive suspension shall not
extend beyond sixty days after the start of said suspension.

“(3) 
At the expiration of sixty days, the suspended official shall be
deemed reinstated in office without prejudice to the continuation of the
proceedings against him until its termination. 
However, if the delay in the proceedings of the case is due to his fault,
neglect or request, the time of the delay shall not be counted in computing the
time of suspension.”

Section 7 of the Implementing Rules & Regulations reads as
follows:

“Sec. 7.  Preventive Suspension.
– If from the answer of the respondent, and the complaint filed, the Minister/Sanggunian concerned find and determine that there is
reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the act or acts complained
of, when the evidence of guilt is strong, when, the gravity of the offense so
warrants, or the continuance in office of the respondent could influence the
witnesses or pose a threat to the safety and integrity of the records
and other evidences, the Minister of Local Government, provincial governor,
or municipal mayor as the case may be, may preventively suspend an elective
provincial, City, municipal or barangay official,
respectively; Provided, That the preventive suspension shall not exceed
sixty (60) days after the start of said suspension.”

There is no merit in the respondents’ contention that the order
of preventive suspension issued by Governor Chiongbian
was within the authority granted in Section 7, Rule 18 of the Implementing
Rules & Regulations to “the Minister of Local Government, provincial
governor, or municipal mayor, as the case may be,” to “preventively
suspend an elective provincial, city, municipal or barangay
official, respectively.”

Respondents misread and misconstrued Section 7, Rule 18 of the
Implementing Rules & Regulations of the Local Government Code.  The rule should be read in juxtaposition with
Section 63 of the Code which provides that “preventive suspension may be
imposed by the Minister of Local Government if the respondent is a
provincial or city official, by the provincial governor if the respondent
is an elective municipal official, or by the city or municipal mayor if the
respondent is an elective barangay official.” In
light of Section 63 of the Code, Section 7 of Rule 18 of the Implementing Rules
& Regulations should be interpreted to mean that the Minister of Local
Government may preventively suspend an elective provincial or city official,
the Provincial Governor may preventively suspend an elective municipal
official, and the city or municipal mayor may preventively suspend an elective barangay official. 
This is as it should be for complaints against provincial or city
officials are supposed to be filed with the Minister (now Secretary) of Local
Government, hence, it is he (not the provincial governor) who would know
whether or not the charges are serious enough to warrant the suspension of the
accused elective provincial or city official.

No rule or regulation issued by the Secretary of Local Government
may alter, amend, or contravene a provision of the Local Government Code.  The implementing rules should conform, not
clash, with the law that they implement, for a
regulation which operates to create a rule out of harmony with the statute is a
nullity (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Vda. de
Prieto, L-13912, September 30, 1950).  A rule or regulation that was issued to
implement a law may not go beyond the terms and provisions of the law (People
vs. Lim, 108 Phil. 1091).

In this case, the implementing rule (Sec. 7, Rule 18) does not in
fact clash with the law (Sec. 63, Local Government Code) – the draftsmanship is
not perfect but the use of the phrase “as the case may be” and the
term “respectively” indicates a delineation of the power to suspend.

As the complaint or complaints against the petitioners were filed
with the Office of the Provincial Governor, not with the Minister of Local
Government as required in Section 61 of the Local Government Code, and, as the
preventive suspension of the petitioners was ordered by the Provincial
Governor, not by the Minister of Local Government; the notice of hearing,
subpoena, and order of preventive suspension issued by the respondents governor
and members of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan
against the petitioners are hereby declared null and void.  (Local Government Code [BP 337], Title Two,
Chapter 4, Sec. 63 [1].) The respondents are without authority to investigate the
petitioners, and the latter may not be compelled to attend the hearings.  Their refusal to answer the charges against
them was justified.

WHEREFORE,
the petition for certiorari is granted. 
The Resolution No. 340-88 of the Sangguniang Panglunsod,
and the order of preventive suspension issued by respondent Governor William Chiongbian, the appointment of Robert O. Taclob as OIC Mayor of Tangub City,
the notices of hearing and subpoenas issued to the petitioners by the
respondents are all annulled and set aside. 
The temporary restraining order which We issued
on December 7, 1988, is
hereby made permanent.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa,
Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Cortes, Medialdea,
and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Gancayco
and Sarmiento, JJ., on leave.