OSCAR N. JACOB, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS, ETC., RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

The Director of Lands,
represented by the Solicitor General, appeals from the decision of the
Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte prohibiting him from
proceeding with the administrative investigation of Oscar N. Jacob. In
a petition for “declaratory relief, injunction, prohibition with
preliminary injunction” filed by Oscar N. Jacob with the lower court,
the following are alleged: that Oscar Jacob is an employee of the
Bureau of Lands Office In Daet, Camarines Norte; that he stands
administratively charged for alleged Irregularities committed by him
while a public land Inspector In the province of Camarlnes Norte In
submitting false final Investigation reports which ultimately led to
the Issuance of Free Patent No. V-8743 in favor of Angel Abies and Free
Patent: No. V-8295 in favor of Cleto Asprec over two (2) parcels of
land both situated In Alayao, Capalonga, Camarlnes Norte, titles
thereto having been already issued; that the administrative complaint
is signed by the Assistant Director of Lands, not under oath, and
without any complainants named therein; that the investigation is being
conducted by the Investigation Branch of the Anti-Graft and Corruption
Board with respondent Leonito Umali as investigator and Esnesto A.
Funsalang as Hearing Officer, which board was created by the Director
of Lands by virtue of Special Order No. 156, dated April 22, 1960, for
the specific purpose of disposing then pending administrative cases;
that the aforesaid special order does not confer jurisdiction upon the
Anti-Graft and Corruption Board to try the administrative charge as
this was filed subsequent to the creation of said board; that the
parcels of land involved have long ceased to be public lands; that the
Investigation Branch aforesaid attempted to present as witness one Mr.
Ignacio R«ctra In his capacity as public land surveyor, over the
objection of petitioner; that the said Investigation Branch is acting
without or in excess of its jurisdiction in proceeding with the
investigation; and that there is no other plain speedy and adequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law but this proceedings.

In
answer, the Director of Lands interposed affirmative and special
defenses, such as that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject
matter; that it states no cause of action; that the ruling of the
Bearing Officer in allowing Ignacio Sectra to testify is interlocutory
and not appealable; and that the petitioner has not ex-tausted all
administrative remedies before coming to court. After having allowed
both parties to file their respective memoranda, the lower court
rendered a decision granting the petition on the sole ground that
pursuant to section 32, Article VII of Republic Act 2260, “there must
be a complaint in writing signed and sworn to by the complainant before
the petitioner may be investigated for his alleged misconduct in office
and that no complaint which is not in writing and signed and sworn to
by the complainant should be given due course.”

Inasmuch as this appeal has been presented for decision without the
appellee’s brief having been submitted on time, the only point of
discussion is the issue raised by the appellant, namely, whether or not
it is necessary that an administrative complaint filed by the head of
an office against a subrodiaate be subscribed under oath.

For
a resolution of the question We need only to quote what We have stated
in the case of Maloga v. Gella. et al., G. R. No. L-20281, November 29,
1965, as follows:

“On the other hand, pur suant to
Executive Order No. 370, series of 1941, administrative proceedings may
be commenced against a government officer or employee by the head or
chief of the bureau or office concerned motu propio, in which case, whatever written charge is filed by him need not be sworn to,
for the simple reason that said head or chief of the bureau or office
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 aforesaid 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 har/asslng them; and
even in such case, when the complaint is no£ or can mt 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. 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. In this
connection, we have held in Pastoriza v. Division Superintendent of
Schools, G. R. No. L-14233, September 23, 19S9, that the procedure
under Executive Order No. 370 substantially conforms to the
requirements of Section 32 of Republic Act 2260 to the effect that 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. And in Bautista v. Negado, G. R. No. L-14319, May 26,
1960, We further held that la complaint is not a pre-requisite to an
administrative investigation.'” (underscoring supplied)

The same issue has again been raised and ruled upon recently in Esperanza vs. Andres Castillo,
etc., et al., G. R. No. L-21810, April 30, 1966, in which We held that
“an administrative complaint filed by the head of a department or head
of office pursuant to Executive Order No. 370, series 1941, need not be
sworn to, despite the provision in section 32 of Republic Act No. 2260.”

In the light of the foregoing authorities. We hold that the Director of
lAnds may now proceed in the investigation of the petitioner-appellee.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is reversed, with costs against the petitioner-appelle.

Conception, C.J., Reyes, Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.