DOMINGO MALOGA, PETITIONER, VS. VICENTE G. GELLA, ET AL.,RESPONDENTS.

Maloga versus Gella

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari brought by Domingo Maloga, the National Cashier of the Bureau of Treasury, against Vicente Gella in his capacity as Treasurer of the Philippines, together with the hearing officer and the prosecutor designated to investigate him. Maloga asks the Supreme Court to annul the unverified administrative complaint for grave misconduct in office that Gella filed against him, and to stop the administrative investigation from proceeding. The case matters because it fixes the rule on when an administrative charge against a civil service official or employee must be sworn to, and when the head or chief of the bureau or office concerned may initiate the proceedings himself without a verified complaint.

Procedural History

The matter began within the executive department. The Treasurer of the Philippines, as head of the bureau or office concerned, initiated the administrative proceedings against Maloga and designated a hearing officer and a prosecutor to conduct the investigation. Instead of appealing the Treasurer's ruling to the corresponding department head, Maloga went directly to the Supreme Court by petition for certiorari, seeking to set aside and annul the complaint and to enjoin the hearing officer and the prosecutor from hearing it. The Supreme Court denied the writ.

Facts

In a letter dated February 16, 1962, respondent Gella, as Treasurer of the Philippines, required Maloga, the National Cashier of the Bureau of Treasury, to explain within seventy-two hours why he should not be charged administratively for violation of office regulations, neglect of duty, and grave abuse of discretion. Maloga submitted his explanation, but Gella was not satisfied with it.

In an unverified letter-complaint dated March 7, 1962, Gella then charged Maloga with grave misconduct in office, required him to answer within seventy-two hours, and relieved him of his position as National Cashier of the Bureau of Treasury.

Maloga answered the letter-complaint, raising among other things that it was null and void because it was not sworn to by the complainant, as required by Section 32 of Republic Act Number 2260. Gella, relying on Executive Order Number 370, series of 1941, which exempts a department head from verifying his complaint against his subordinate, designated a hearing officer and a prosecutor to conduct the administrative investigation. Maloga then filed this petition for certiorari.

Issues

• Whether or not Maloga exhausted the administrative remedies available to him before instituting the petition for certiorari.
• Whether or not the administrative complaint filed by the Treasurer of the Philippines against his subordinate must be subscribed and sworn to by the complainant under Section 32 of Republic Act Number 2260.

Applicable Provisions

Section 32 of Republic Act Number 2260, as quoted in the answer of the petitioner, provides:

No complaint against a civil service official or employee shall be given due course unless the same is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant.

This is the verification requirement that Maloga invokes to attack the unverified letter-complaint of March 7, 1962.

Paragraph 1 of Executive Order Number 370, series of 1941, as discussed in the decision, provides:

Administrative proceedings may be commenced against a government officer or employee by the head or chief of the bureau or office concerned motu proprio, in which case, whatever written charge is filed by him need not be sworn to.

This is the provision the Court applies to hold that the complaint of the bureau head need not be under oath.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the writ must be denied because Maloga did not exhaust the administrative remedies available before instituting the action. From the ruling of the respondent Treasurer of the Philippines, Maloga could have appealed to the corresponding department head before filing the petition for certiorari. This he failed to do.

On the second issue, the Court held that when the administrative charge against a government employee is proffered by the head or chief of the bureau or office concerned, the same need not be verified. Pursuant to Executive Order Number 370, series of 1941, administrative proceedings may be commenced by the head or chief of the bureau or office concerned motu proprio, in which case whatever written charge is filed by him need not be sworn to, for the simple reason that the head or chief is deemed to be acting in his official capacity and under his oath of office. It is only when the charge or complaint is filed by another person that the executive order requires it to be under oath, for the obvious purpose of protecting government employees against malicious complaints filed only for the purpose of harassing them. Even in such a case, when the complaint is not or cannot be sworn to by the complainant, the head or chief of the bureau or office may, in his discretion, take action thereon if the public interest or the special circumstances of the case warrant. The Court reasoned that if this is so, it would be illogical to require the head or chief of the bureau or office to swear to the complaint when the same is filed by him.

The Court further relied on its prior rulings. In Pastoriza versus Division Superintendent of Schools, it held that the procedure under Executive Order Number 370 substantially conforms to the requirements of Section 32 of Republic Act Number 2260. In Bautista versus Negado, it held that a complaint is not a prerequisite to an administrative investigation. In light of these rulings, the Court concluded that the respondent Treasurer of the Philippines had authority to initiate the administrative proceedings against Maloga, that a formal complaint was not a prerequisite for the validity thereof, and that consequently the letter of March 7, 1962 charging Maloga with grave misconduct in office did not have to be under oath.

Doctrine

An administrative charge against a civil service official or employee filed by the head or chief of the bureau or office concerned need not be subscribed and sworn to. The head or chief is deemed to be acting in his official capacity and under his oath of office, and it would be illogical to require him to swear to a complaint he himself files.

The verification requirement of Section 32 of Republic Act Number 2260 applies to complaints filed by another person, and its purpose is to protect government employees against malicious complaints filed only to harass them. Even then, the head or chief of the bureau or office may, in his discretion, take action on an unsworn complaint if the public interest or the special circumstances of the case warrant.

A complaint is not a prerequisite to an administrative investigation, and the procedure under Executive Order Number 370 substantially conforms to the requirements of Section 32 of Republic Act Number 2260.

Finally, a party who fails to appeal an adverse ruling to the corresponding department head has not exhausted the administrative remedies available to him, and his petition for certiorari will be denied on that ground.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari prayed for, with costs, so that the administrative complaint and investigation against Maloga stood.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that when the head or chief of the bureau or office concerned files the administrative charge himself, the complaint need not be sworn to, because he acts under his oath of office. Examiners like to use this case on the verification requirement for administrative complaints under the civil service law, and on the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before resort to certiorari.