On the Ombudsman's preventive suspension of ERC Chair Mona Dimalanta

I saw the Ombudsman ruling, 8 pages.

Am not a lawyer, not used to reading legal documents. But my understanding of this case are as follows.

1. Pete Ilagan, President of Nasecore, is angry at Meralco, many reasons.

2. Then Ilagan is angry at ERC Chair Mona Dimalanta because ERC delayed Meralco presentation of evidence regarding the setting of distribution wheeling rates for nearly 2 years (Sept. 2, 2022 to May 3, 2024), plus 4 other complaints by Ilagan vs Meralco that ERC has not acted upon.

Should be valid complaints but the case seems weak to be called "Grave Misconduct; Grave Abuse of Authority." Why, where is the abuse?

Then the Ombudsman quickly ruled on preventive suspension vs Ms. Dimalanta. 

Weird, or suspicious. There should be other motives. Politics.

Some companies/conglomerates angry at Ms Dimalanta for her previous rulings now getting back at her.

Or some companies/conglomerates worried of her possible ruling on their cases/petitions so she must be out.

Or some political players trying to bring in new guys at ERC?

Am no professional political analyst too, so I can only raise some possible explanations and hypothesis, but no hard evidence to say which of these or other factors as the reason for the quick action by the Ombudsman.

Update:

I failed to add above before posting few hours ago, that the complaint by Ilagan and the order by Ombudsman overlook the fact that the ERC is a collegial body, there are other Commissioners who decide and vote on decisions. The Chair is the signatory to most issuances but it is always by authority and on behalf of the Commission.

Ilagan and the Ombudsman just singled out Ms. Dimalanta. Another weird case.