ABELARDO BUENO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO G. CORDOBA, JR., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

Bueno versus Cordoba

The Case

This is a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Abelardo Bueno against Francisco G. Cordoba, Jr., the investigator assigned by the Rice and Corn Administration, to stop an administrative investigation into alleged irregularities in the handling of rice. Bueno claims the investigation cannot proceed because the charge against him was not sworn to. The case matters because it draws the line between two ways of starting an administrative proceeding against a civil service employee: a complaint by another person, which must be sworn, and a direct charge by the head of the agency, which need not be.

Procedural History

The Rice and Corn Administration General Manager filed an administrative charge against Bueno. Bueno moved to dismiss before the investigator, arguing that under Section 32 of Republic Act 2260 no administrative investigation may proceed without a sworn complaint. The motion was denied. Bueno then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte against the investigator. After submission of the case upon the pleadings, the trial court rendered judgment restraining the respondent from proceeding with the investigation. The respondent appealed to the Supreme Court, raising questions of law.

Facts

In the middle of February 1963, the Rice and Corn Administration office at Daet, Camarines Norte received a shipment of rice from Manila. Bueno, the warehouseman, authorized Crispiniano Tolentino, a sales supervisor, to take delivery from the railway station at Sipocot and to convoy the loaded truck to Daet. The officer in charge at Daet noticed that one truck did not carry a whole load and inquired why. A laborer told her that, by order of Bueno, twenty bags had been unloaded at the house of the trucking contractor, Sancho Asis. Tolentino admitted the unloading, and Asis admitted receiving the twenty bags, saying he had requested them to buy for his laborers.

The officer in charge reported the incident to the General Manager on March 21, 1963, noting violations of existing regulations, namely the unauthorized issue of rice without official receipts and invoices and the issue of rice to a person who was not a retailer. Neither the report nor the charge was under oath.

On March 29, 1963, the General Manager filed an administrative charge against Bueno for misconduct in office and violation of office rules and regulations, alleging that Bueno had ordered twenty bags of rice unloaded at the house of Sancho Asis without supporting papers. Investigator Cordoba was assigned to conduct the administrative investigation. Bueno moved to dismiss on the ground that a sworn complaint was required, and when that was denied, he went to court.

Issues

• Whether or not the administrative investigation against Bueno may proceed even though no sworn complaint was filed against him.
• Whether or not the requirement of a sworn complaint under Section 32 of Republic Act 2260 applies to proceedings commenced by a direct charge of the head of the agency.

Applicable Provisions

Section 32 of Republic Act 2260, the Civil Service Act, provides:

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: 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.

This is the provision Bueno relies on to argue that the investigation cannot proceed without a sworn complaint.

Section 24 of Rule XVIII of the Civil Service, which implements that provision, provides:

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.

This provision shows that an administrative proceeding may be commenced in two ways, and the oath requirement attaches only to the second.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the investigation may proceed. An administrative proceeding may be commenced either upon a charge by the Department or Agency head, or upon a complaint filed by any other person. The requirement that no complaint shall be given due course unless under oath pertains only to 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.

On the second issue, the Court held that the oath requirement does not apply to a direct charge by the agency head. The Rice and Corn Administration General Manager is the agency head, and the power to take disciplinary action against RCA employees lies in him. He may receive reports from subordinate officers on alleged irregularities, and should he decide to file administrative charges himself, the law does not require of him what it requires of other persons: a sworn complaint. The Court explained the reason for the difference: the position of responsibility 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.

The Court added that regardless of whether the report of Josefita Asis-Villegas is a complaint or not, the administrative proceedings were not commenced thereby, so its not being under oath is beside the point. The proceedings being upon the instance of the General Manager himself, a sworn complaint is not required under the law.

Doctrine

An administrative proceeding against a civil service officer or employee may be commenced in one of two ways: upon a charge by the head of the Department or Agency concerned, or upon a complaint filed by any other person. The requirement under Section 32 of Republic Act 2260 and Section 24 of Rule XVIII of the Civil Service that no complaint be given due course unless in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant applies only to proceedings commenced by complaint. It does not apply where the proceeding is commenced by the direct charge of the agency head, because in that case no complaint is required at all. The agency head need not swear to his own charge, since his office and his oath to faithfully discharge his functions sufficiently warrant that his charges are worth investigating.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the judgment of the trial court, dismissed the petition filed below, and ordered costs against Bueno.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a sworn complaint is required only when the proceeding is commenced by complaint, not when it is commenced by the direct charge of the agency head. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between the two modes of commencing an administrative proceeding and the scope of the oath requirement under the Civil Service law.