G.R. No. 23932. April 27, 1967
ABELARDO BUENO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO G. CORDOBA, JR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
BENGZON, J.P., J.:
A report dated March
21, 1963 to the Rice and Corn Administration
General Manager from Josefita Asis-Villegas,
RCA Incharge at Daet, Camarines Norte, ran in part as follows:
“I have the honor to make the following reports:
x x x x x
“2. Sometime about the middle of February, we received a
notice of shipment of rice from Manila
via MRR. Mr. Bueno, the warehouseman, authorized Mr. Crispiniano Tolentino, Sales
Supervisor to take delivery from Sipocot MRR Station
and to convoy the truck loaded with rice to Daet. I noticed that one truck did not carry a
whole load so I inquired from one of the laborers why the load
seem to be lacking. He told me
that by order of Mr. Bueno, 20 bags were unloaded at
the house of the trucking contractor by the name of Mr. Sancho Asis. Mr. Tolentino admitted unloading 20 bags at Mr. Asis‘ house. In order to verify I personally went to Mr. Asis and inquired.
He admitted that 20 bags were unloaded in his house, and added further that
this was the quantity
he requested to buy for his laborers.
I told him that the transaction was irregular, as we are not allowed to
sell by the sack much less 20 sacks to anybody.
“By the above incident, there are violations made on our
existing regulation like unauthorized issue of rice without the necessary papers like Official Receipt and Invoice, issue
of rice to unauthorized person (not a retailer).”
The RCA General Manager filed on March 29, 1963 an administrative charge
against Abelardo Bueno
(Adm. Case No. 29-S-63), stating:
“As employee of the RCA in Daet, Camarines Norte, you are hereby charged of misconduct
in office and violation
of office rules and regulations in that on the middle part of February,
1963, you
ordered 20 bags of RCA rice be unloaded in the
house of certain Sancho Asis without
supporting papers in form of official receipts and invoices.”
Neither the report nor the charge was under oath.
RCA investigator Francisco G. Cordoba, Jr. was subsequently
assigned to conduct the administrative investigation. Submitting to him a motion to dismiss, Bueno argued that pursuant to Section 32 of Republic Act
2260 the administrative investigation cannot proceed without a sworn
complaint. Said motion was denied.
Pressing the same argument, Bueno filed
in the
Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte a petition
for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary
injunction against the RCA investigator.
And after submission of the case upon the pleadings, said court rendered judgment on July 6, 1964
restraining the respondent from proceeding with the investigation. Respondent has appealed to Us
to raise questions of law.
The principal issue is whether petitioner’s investigation is legal
notwithstanding that no sworn complaint was filed against him.
The provision of Section 32, Republic Act 2260 – the Civil
Service Act – relied
upon by petitioner, states:
“Section 32. Disciplinary action. – No officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed
or suspended except for cause as provided by law and after due process: x x x Provided, further, 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: x x x“
And implementing said provision is
Section 24 of Rule XVIII of the Civil Service, also invoked by petitioner, as
follows:
“Sec. 24. Except as otherwise
provided by law, administrative proceedings may be commenced against a
subordinate officer or employee by the head of Department or agency concerned or upon
complaint of any other person; Provided, 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.”
It can readily be seen from the foregoing that an administrative
proceeding may be commenced in one of two ways: (1) upon a charge by the
Department or Agency head; or (2) upon a complaint filed by any other person. Therefore, the aforementioned provision that
no complaint shall be given due course unless under oath, pertains to administrative
proceedings commenced by complaint. It does
not apply to proceedings commenced by direct charge of the Department or Agency
head, for in such event no complaint is required (Bautista v. Negado, L-14319, May 26, 1960).
The RCA General Manager is the Agency head of said office. The power to take disciplinary action against RCA
employees lies in him (Sec. 4, RA 3452). From time to time he may receive
reports from his subordinate officers on alleged irregularities by RCA employees, as
part of the information regularly transmitted to him by said officers. Should he decide, upon the basis of such reports
or otherwise, to file administrative charges himself, the law does not require
of him what it requires of other persons who wish to institute administrative
proceedings against the employees of his office: a sworn complaint.
The reasons for the difference are not hard to see. The position of responsibility which he occupies sufficiently
warrants that his charges are worth investigating. And he acts in the performance of a function
he has already sworn, upon assuming office, to faithfully discharge.
Regardless, therefore, of whether the report of Josefita Asis-Villegas is a complaint
or not, the administrative proceedings not having been commenced thereby, its
not being under oath is beside the point.
Said proceedings being upon
the instance of the RCA General Manager himself, a sworn complaint
is not required under the law.
WHEREFORE,
the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside and the petition
filed below is dismissed. With costs against petitioner-appellee.
SO ORDERED.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and Castro, JJ., concur.