Can the sangguniang panlalawigan resolution revoke the resolution adopted by its quasi-judicial body when the said resolution was already implemented

Based on the foregoing, preventive suspension may be imposed only if all the following conditions are present: 1) Issues have already been joined; 2) When the evidence of guilt is strong; and 3) There is great probability that 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. Therefore, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, as the Quasi-Judicial Body, may revoke the preventive suspension if any or all of the foregoing conditions are no longer present. Nevertheless, the Sanggunian Panlalawigan revoked or nullified Resolution No. 2021-01 on a claim that the suspended officials were not given the opportunity to_appeal their suspension, which is not a condition for the revocation of the preventive suspension. Beside, this level noted that respondents were not denied the opportunity to appeal their preventive suspension. In the recital of facts, it was manifested that respondents immediately questioned their preventive suspension by filing Civil Case No. 3494-G for Nullification of the Order of Preventive Suspension with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Preliminary Injunction before the RTC Gumaca, Quezon. In fact, they were given a TRO and an extension, albeit set aside on January 10, 2022. It bears stressing that under Section 9 of A.O. 22 s. 2011, the preventive suspension of the respondents, as in this case, can be appealed to the Office of the President. Further, in Memorandum from the Executive Secretary dated December 1, 2021 entitled “APPELLATE JURISDICTION FO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OVER SUSPENSION ORDERS AGAINST LOCAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS” (OP Memorandum), the timely filing of the respondent of an appeal from decisions or orders of the sanggunian shall not automatically stay the execution of said sangqunian decisions __or orders. Pertinent portion of the aforesaid OP Memorandum reads: The timely filing before the OP of an a eal from decisions or orders issued by the Sangqunians in administrative cases against local elective officials shall not automatically stay the execution thereof, pursuant to Section 9 of Administrative Order (AO) No. 22, s. 2011, in relation to Section 68 of the Local Government Code of 1991.” 2. The OP, however, has authority to order the stay of execution of the final decision or orders of suspension from office issued by the Sanggunians against local elective officials, pursuant to Section 9 of AO No. 22 and consistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Berces Sr. vs. Executive Secretary. 3. The OP may likewise exercise appellate jurisdiction over orders of Sanggunians imposing preventive suspension against local elective officials, pursuant to Section 1 and 9 of AO No. 22, and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Moreover, this is in aid of the appellate jurisdiction of the OP over the decisions of such Sanggunians in administrative cases. XXX XXX XXX Page 40f 5