ARTURO H. TROCIO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. ABELARDO SUBIDO, JORGE LABAYO, JOSE QUIROLGICO, ANTONIO LUSPO, AND GREGORIO BALANZA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

Sometime in 1961, petitioner-appellant Arturo Trocio, as
Municipal Treasurer of Mambajao, Camiguin,
Misamis Oriental, was administratively charged
for violation of Sec. 14 of the 1954 Revised
Manual of Instructions to Treasurers and Sec. 614 of the Revised Administrative
Code.  Upon finding that Trocio had cash items consisting of National and Provincial payrolls amounting to P8,993.99 paid by him without the
express approval of the Provincial Treasurer in violation of the provisions
above-stated, the Civil Service
Commissioner, on June 21, 1961, found him guilty as charged in a decision the dispositive portion of which read:

“x x x Wherefore, he is hereby fined his fifteen (15) days pay,
reprimanded and warned that commission of another offense will be dealt with
more severely.  In the interest of the
service, he should likewise be transferred without demotion in rank or salary
such action not being considered disciplinary in character.”

x                    x                      x                      x

Trocio moved for reconsideration.  This was denied by resolution of the Commissioner,
dated May 27, 1964, which stated
further that “the aforementioned decision be executed immediately, it
appearing from the records that the respondent-petitioner has not yet paid the
fine imposed upon him and that he has not also been transferred.”

Upon indorsement to him of the
foregoing resolution by the Undersecretary of Finance for compliance, the Provincial
Treasurer of Misamis Oriental issued a directive
on June 3, 1964 reprimanding and
warning Trocio, ordering him to effect immediate payment
of the fine imposed and detailing him for assignment in the office of the Provincial
Treasurer in Cagayan de Oro
City, without demotion in rank or reduction in salary.  On the same date, the Provincial Treasurer
designated the assistant Municipal Treasurer, Gregorio Balanza,
as officer in charge of the Municipal Treasurer’s office of Mambajao
in place of petitioner-appellant.

Trocio refused to obey this directive,
insisting that the decision of the Commissioner was illegal.  On June 15,
1964, he
appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals claiming that his
conviction was without due process of law and that, given the opportunity, he can justify all his acts.  Trocio also
questioned the immediate execution of the decision on the ground that it has
not yet become final and executory since under Sec. 36 of the Civil Service Act of 1959 (Republic Act 2260) he still had
30 days within which to appeal
to the Civil Service Board of Appeals and on the further ground that his
transfer was unlawful since he did not consent there­to.

On June 20, 1964, Trocio went to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental with a petition for prohibition with
preliminary injunction
to prevent the immediate execution of the questioned decision.  The court issued the preliminary writ of injunction prayed
for.  But subsequently, the same court,
acting upon an urgent motion to dismiss filed by respondents-appellees, dismissed the petition and dissolved the preliminary
injunction, upholding the Commissioner’s
right to execute his decision pending appeal to the Civil Service Board of
Appeals, and Trocio’s recall to the Provincial
Treasurer’s office.

Upon denial of his motion for reconsideration, Trocio appealed to this Court raising questions purely of
law.  On August 6, 1964, petitioner-appellant filed here a motion for issuance
of preliminary injunction to put him in possession of the office.  This We denied.

At issue is the authority of the Commissioner of Civil Service to
enforce his decision pending its appeal to the Civil Service Boar of Appeals.  The Revised
Civil Service Rules provides^[1]
as follows:

“The Commissioner shall transmit to the head of Department
concerned his decision on the case within six months from date of receipt
of the complete record of the case and the head of Department shall, within 10
days from receipt thereof, serve the respondent a copy of the decision.  The Commissioner, if public
interest so warrants, may order his decision executed pending appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals.” (Underscoring
supplied)

Petitioner-appellant does not seriously question the power, in general, of the Commissioner to execute his decision pending appeal. 
What he assails, however, is the
correctness or propriety of the latter’s action, submitting that public
interest – meaning the interest of the Republic of the Philippines, and
not that of Mambajao, Camiguin
subprovince – does not call for execution of the
decision pending appeal in his particular
case.

The submission is untenable.  Petitioner-appellant perhaps would be correct
if the Rules used the words “national interest”.  But even applying petitioner’s concept of
“pu­blic interest”, the result will be the same.  Since as municipal treasurer, he undoubtedly
handles national as well as provincial and municipal funds, the interest of the
Republic, or the “community at large” is
affected.  And it is primarily for the Commissioner to determine when public interest warrants the
execution, pending ap­peal, of his decisions since that is not ministerial but
discretionary on his part. 
Petitioner-appellant then has the burden to show clearly that the action
undertaken by the Commissioner amounted to grave abuse of discretion.  None having been shown, the dismissal of the
petition by the court a quo cannot be validly assailed as
erroneous.

Petitioner-appellant
relies upon Cabigao v. Del Rosario, L-18370, Oct. 31, 1962, for the proposition that Commissioner may execute his
decision pending appeal only if special reasons require it. 
This is untenable. Sec. 28 of
Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil
Service Rules does not require the presence of special reasons.  More­over, Cabigao
v. Del Rosario is not
authority for the proposition
maintained by petitioner.  The ratio
decidendi there was that although the decision
of the Commissioner adverse to the government employee under
investigation is appealable to the Civil Service
Board of Appeals, the former has discretion to enforce it and make it
effective pending appeal, to protect public interest.  The presence or absence of special reasons therefor
was not at issue, and hence anything said
on the point must be regarded as mere obiter.

Petitioner-appellant would also advance as an issue here the
correctness and legality of the questioned decision of the Civil Service
Commissioner.  But such question – which
goes to the merits of the case – is not a matter that should be passed upon
here.  It should be resolved in the Civil
Service Board of Appeals where the entire administrative decision is being
questioned.  The only question here is
whether the decision of the Commissioner can be legally executed pending appeal. 
And under the facts and circumstances above described, We hold that
it can.

WHEREFORE, the order of dismissal appealed from
is hereby affirmed with costs against petitioner-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, and Castro, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rule XVIII, D., Sec. 28.