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

Trocio versus Subido

The Case

This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction filed by Arturo Trocio, the Municipal Treasurer of Mambajao, Camiguin, against Abelardo Subido and the other respondents, to stop the immediate execution of a decision of the Civil Service Commissioner pending his appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals. The case matters because it fixes the rule on the authority of the Commissioner of Civil Service to enforce his decision pending appeal, and it teaches how a court treats a discretionary power that the law has lodged in an administrative officer.

Procedural History

Trocio was administratively charged and, on June 21, 1961, the Civil Service Commissioner found him guilty, imposing a fine equivalent to fifteen days of pay, a reprimand, and a warning, and directing that he be transferred without demotion in rank or salary. Trocio moved for reconsideration, which was denied by resolution dated May 27, 1964, which further ordered that the decision be executed immediately. Acting on that resolution, the Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental issued a directive on June 3, 1964 reprimanding and warning Trocio, ordering him to pay the fine, and detailing him to the office of the Provincial Treasurer in Cagayan de Oro City, and on the same date designated Gregorio Balanza as officer in charge of the Municipal Treasurer's office of Mambajao in his place.

Trocio refused to obey and appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals on June 15, 1964. On June 20, 1964, he went to the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental with a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction. The trial court issued the preliminary writ, but later dismissed the petition and dissolved the injunction, upholding the Commissioner's right to execute his decision pending appeal and Trocio's recall to the Provincial Treasurer's office. Upon denial of his motion for reconsideration, Trocio appealed to the Supreme Court raising questions purely of law, and his motion for a preliminary injunction to put him in possession of the office was denied.

Facts

Sometime in 1961, Arturo Trocio, as Municipal Treasurer of Mambajao, Camiguin, Misamis Oriental, was administratively charged for violation of Section 14 of the 1954 Revised Manual of Instructions to Treasurers and Section 614 of the Revised Administrative Code. The charge arose from cash items consisting of National and Provincial payrolls amounting to 8,993 pesos and 99 centavos paid by him without the express approval of the Provincial Treasurer.

The Civil Service Commissioner found him guilty and imposed a fine of fifteen days pay, a reprimand, and a warning, and directed that he be transferred without demotion in rank or salary. When Trocio moved for reconsideration, the Commissioner denied it and ordered the decision executed immediately, noting that Trocio had not yet paid the fine and had not been transferred.

The Provincial Treasurer then issued the directive of June 3, 1964, and designated Gregorio Balanza as officer in charge in Trocio's place. Trocio refused to obey, insisting that the decision was illegal, and appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, claiming that his conviction was without due process and that his transfer was unlawful since he did not consent to it. He then sought prohibition in the Court of First Instance, which dismissed the petition, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.

Issues

• Whether or not the Commissioner of Civil Service has the authority to enforce his decision pending appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals.
• Whether or not public interest warranted the execution of the Commissioner's decision pending appeal in Trocio's particular case.
• Whether or not the correctness and legality of the Commissioner's decision on the merits may be passed upon in the prohibition proceedings.

Applicable Provisions

Section 28 of Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules provides:

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.

This is the very provision that confers on the Commissioner the power to order execution pending appeal, conditioned on public interest, and it is the textual anchor of the entire ruling.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Commissioner has the authority to enforce his decision pending appeal. Trocio did not seriously question the power in general; what he assailed was the correctness or propriety of its exercise in his case.

On the second issue, the Court held that public interest did warrant execution pending appeal. Trocio argued that public interest means the interest of the Republic of the Philippines and not that of the subprovince of Mambajao, Camiguin. The Court found the submission untenable, reasoning that Trocio would perhaps be correct if the Rules used the words national interest, but that even applying his concept of public interest the result would be the same, since as municipal treasurer he undoubtedly handles national as well as provincial and municipal funds, and the interest of the Republic, or the community at large, is affected. The Court stressed that it is primarily for the Commissioner to determine when public interest warrants execution pending appeal, since that is not ministerial but discretionary on his part, and that Trocio bore the burden to show clearly that the action amounted to grave abuse of discretion, which he failed to show.

The Court also rejected Trocio's reliance on the Cabigao case for the proposition that the Commissioner may execute his decision pending appeal only if special reasons require it. The Court held that Section 28 of Rule XVIII does not require the presence of special reasons, and that the ratio decidendi of Cabigao was that the Commissioner has discretion to enforce his decision pending appeal to protect public interest, so that anything said on special reasons was mere obiter.

On the third issue, the Court held that the correctness and legality of the Commissioner's decision, which goes to the merits, is not a matter that should be passed upon in the prohibition proceedings. It should be resolved in the Civil Service Board of Appeals where the entire administrative decision is being questioned. The only question before the Court was whether the decision of the Commissioner can be legally executed pending appeal, and under the facts and circumstances, the Court held that it can.

Doctrine

The Commissioner of Civil Service may order his decision executed pending appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals if public interest so warrants, as expressly provided in Section 28 of Rule XVIII of the Revised Civil Service Rules. The determination of when public interest warrants execution pending appeal is not ministerial but discretionary on the part of the Commissioner, and the burden rests on the employee to show clearly that the action amounted to grave abuse of discretion. Public interest is not confined to national interest in the narrow sense, since a municipal treasurer handles national as well as provincial and municipal funds, and the interest of the Republic or the community at large is affected. The provision does not require the presence of special reasons. Finally, the merits of the administrative decision are for the Civil Service Board of Appeals on appeal, not for the court in a petition for prohibition, which reaches only the question of whether the decision may be legally executed pending appeal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal appealed from, with costs against petitioner-appellant Trocio.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the Commissioner of Civil Service may execute his decision pending appeal if public interest so warrants, and that determination is discretionary, reviewable only for grave abuse of discretion. Examiners use this case on administrative law to test the extent of the Commissioner's power of immediate execution and the limits of a petition for prohibition, which cannot reach the merits of the administrative decision.