Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > August 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-29922 August 29, 1969 - BENJAMIN H. AVES v. EDUARDO L. JOSON, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-29922. August 29, 1969.]

BENJAMIN H. AVES, In his capacity as Municipal Mayor of Penaranda, Nueva Ecija, Petitioner-Appellant, v. HON. EDUARDO L. JOSON, In his capacity as Governor of Nueva Ecija, and DEMETRIO R. LACUNA, In his capacity as Vice-Mayor of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, respondent- appellees.

Bernardo P. Abesamis for Petitioner-Appellant.

Ibarra R. Vigilia for Respondents-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW; DECENTRALIZATION ACT OF 1967; PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR WITHOUT POWER OF PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION OF MUNICIPAL MAYOR. — The provincial governor has no power of preventive suspension of a municipal mayor. Under the Decentralization Act of 1967 such power "has been withheld from the provincial governor and may no longer be exercised by him."cralaw virtua1aw library

2. ID.; ID.; PURPOSE. — One of the basic purposes implicit in the Decentralization Act of 1967 withholding from the provincial governor the power of preventive suspension of the municipal mayor is to minimize, if not to do away entirely with, the evils of partisanship.


D E C I S I O N


FERNANDO, J.:


In this petition for certiorari filed on July 9, 1968 with the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, the Municipal Mayor of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, Benjamin H. Aves, prayed for a declaration of nullity of the order of preventive suspension of sixty days effective July 5, 1968 issued by the Provincial Governor of Nueva Ecija, respondent Eduardo L. Joson. 1 The petition for certiorari failed, the lower court in its decision of August 31, 1968 dismissing the same, respondent Provincial Governor being upheld. Hence, this appeal to us. We reverse the lower court on the authority of Sarcos v. Castillo, 2 a decision promulgated by us on January 31, 1969, where it was categorically held that, under the Decentralization Act of 1967 3 the power of preventive suspension of a municipal mayor "has been withheld from the provincial governor and may no longer be exercised by him."cralaw virtua1aw library

The facts as found by the lower court follow:" (I) That petitioner Benjamin H. Aves is duly elected Mayor of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, and has been holding and exercising the duties and functions of said offices since January 1, 1968; (2) That on July 3, 1968 respondent Governor Joson filed an administrative complaint with the Provincial Board of Nueva Ecija . . . charging the petitioner with alleged ‘Official Misconduct’ and ‘Illegal Employment of Municipal Policemen’; (3) That on the basis of the said charges, respondent Governor Joson on July 3, 1968 issued an order suspending the petitioner from office effective July 5, 1968 for a period of sixty (60) days . . .; (4) That upon instructions of respondent Governor Joson, respondent Vice- Mayor Lacuna took his oath as Acting Mayor of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, on July 5, 1968 . . . and forthwith assumed such of lice and exercised the duties and functions thereof on the same date. This fact has been expressly admitted by the petitioner thru counsel orally in open [court] and in writing . . ." 4

The crucial issue then was the validity of the preventive suspension of petitioner ordered by respondent Provincial Governor. The answer cannot be in doubt. As was made clear by us in the Sarcos decision, such an authority he does not possess under the Decentralization Act of 1967. That much is clear in the light of the explicit statutory language employed. To quote from the Sarcos opinion: "1. Under the former law then in force which stands repealed by virtue of the Decentralization Act, the provincial governor, if the charge against a municipal official was one affecting his official integrity, could order his preventive suspension. At present, the law is anything but that. A reading of the pertinent paragraph above-quoted makes manifest that it is the provincial board to which such a power has been granted under conditions therein specified. The statutory provision is worded differently. The principle, that the deliberate selection of language other than that used in an earlier act is indicative that a change in the law was intended, calls for application." 5 As was therein stated further: "Here, clearly, no such authority is vested in the provincial governor. Instead, the statutory scheme, complete on its face, would locate such power in the provincial board. There would be no support for the view, then, that the action taken by the provincial governor in issuing the order of preventive suspension in this case was in accordance with law." 6

This being another instance where a suspension of a municipal official belonging to a party other than that to which the provincial governor is affiliated, it may not be amiss to stress a new one the basic purposes implicit in the Decentralization Act of 1967, namely, to minimize, if not to do away entirely with, the evils of partisanship. In terms of a desirable end to be achieved, that would constitute a further justification of the view that the provincial governor is bereft of the previously granted authority to order a preventive suspension. Our observation in the Sarcos case bears repeating: "Such a restraining influence is indeed needed for the undeniable facts of the contemporary political scene bear witness to efforts, at times disguised, at other times quite blatant, on the part of local officials to make use of their positions to gain partisan advantage. Harassment of those belonging to opposing factions or groups is not unknown. Unfortunately, no stigma seems to attach to what really amounts to a misuse of official power. The truism that a public office is a public trust, implicit in which is the recognition that public advantage and not private benefit should be the test of one’s conduct, seems to have been ignored all too often. The construction of any statute therefore, even assuming that it is tainted by ambiguity, which would reduce the opportunity of any public official to make use of his position for partisan ends, has much to recommend it." 7

This being a certiorari proceeding, the ultimate question being the absence of authority or the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the provincial governor, it suffices to declare null and void his order of preventive suspension, there being no need to pass upon the other questions raised in the petition. That our decision should be limited to the disposition of this crucial issue is further reinforced by the fact that the preventive suspension ordered was only for a period of sixty days dating from July 5, 1968, and there is nothing in the record, nor in petitioner’s brief filed on February 11, 1969 as well as in his motion for an early decision submitted August 16, 1969 to show that petitioner had not as yet been reinstated to his position.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court of August 31, 1968 dismissing the petition is reversed and another entered granting this petition for certiorari, declaring null and void the order of preventive suspension of July 3, 1968 issued by the provincial governor. Without pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Reyes, J.B.L., J., is on official leave.

Endnotes:



1. The other respondent named is the Vice-Mayor of Peñaranda, Demetrio R. Lacuna.

2. 26 SCRA 853 (1969).

3. Republic Act. No. 5185.

4. Appendix, Brief for Petitioner-Appellant, pp. 33-34.

5. Sarcos v. Castillo, 26 SCRA 858-859 (1969).

6. Ibid. p. 859.

7. Ibid, pp. 864-865.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-28269 August 15, 1969 - CONSUELO VDA. DE QUIRINO v. JOSE PALARCA

  • G.R. Nos. L-21385-86 August 22, 1969 - CRISPINIANO BLANCO v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27431 August 22, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO HAMTIG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29026 August 22, 1969 - PANTALEON PACIS v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30341 August 22, 1969 - REMIGIO R. ESQUILLO v. ABELARDO SUBIDO

  • G.R. No. L-30165 August 22, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSENDO RESUELLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30830 August 22, 1969 - PCI BANK v. ELRO DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22685 August 25, 1969 - PHILIPPINE TRUST CO. v. SIMEON POLICARPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26948 August 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO PAGADUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29209 August 25, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO SOLACITO

  • G.R. No. L-29131 August 27, 1969 - NATIONAL MARKETING CORP. v. MIGUEL D. TECSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27580 August 27, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. UY PIEK TUY

  • G.R. No. L-27429 August 27, 1969 - IN RE: OH HEK HOW v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27002 August 27, 1969 - EDUARDO VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. PRISCILO PORTIGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21581 August 28, 1969 - AVELINA LANZAR v. RAFAEL GUERRERO, SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22263 August 28, 1969 - F. SARE ENTERPRISES v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-25710 August 28, 1969 - IN RE: AQUILINO DEL ROSARIO, JR., ET AL. v. JUANITA OLIDAR VDA. MERCADO

  • G.R. Nos. L-29092-93 August 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GERMAN SERAFICA

  • G.R. No. L-29618 August 28, 1969 - BISAYA LAND TRANSPORTATION CO. INC., ET AL. v. FRANCISCO GERONIMO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30149 August 28, 1969 - IN RE: ANECITO SING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21788 August 28, 1969 - MUNICIPALITY OF PASACAO v. PROV’L. BOARD OF CAMARINES SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22219 August 28, 1969 - ALHAMBRA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25138 August 28, 1969 - JOSE A. BELTRAN, ET AL. v. PEOPLE’S HOMESITE & HOUSING CORP.

  • G.R. No. L-25355 August 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN LAGRIMAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24791 August 29, 1969 - APOLONIA MIRANDA, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-26826 August 29, 1969 - BALDOMERO S. LUQUE v. JUDGE UNION C. KAYANAN

  • G.R. No. L-27863 August 29, 1969 - LUZON METAL AND PLUMBING WORKS CO., INC. v. MANILA UNDERWRITERS INS. CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22614 August 29, 1969 - RAMIREZ TELEPHONE CORP. v. BANK OF AMERICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23757 August 29, 1969 - JOSE MARlA ANDUIZA, ET AL. v. SANTOS DY-KIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29166 August 29, 1969 - IN RE: ROSALIA TAN COHON v. ELECTION REGISTRAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29396 August 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO P. VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29748 August 29, 1969 - PNB v. FERNANDO PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-29922 August 29, 1969 - BENJAMIN H. AVES v. EDUARDO L. JOSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28505 August 29, 1969 - PNB v. ESTANISLAO PINEDA

  • G.R. No. L-23921 August 29, 1969 - RIZALINA G. GALSIM, ET AL. v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

  • G.R. No. L-24765 August 29, 1969 - PNB v. MAXIMO STA. MARIA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 415 August 29, 1969 - DR. ADRIANO B. VELASQUEZ v. APOLONIO BARRERA

  • G.R. No. L-23396 August 29, 1969 - ARSENIA GUARDIANO v. JORGE ENCARNACION

  • G.R. Nos. L-23786-87 August 29, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO MANUEL

  • A.C. No. 116 August 29, 1969 - AMBROSIO DIAMALON v. JESUS QUINTILLAN

  • G.R. No. L-21906 August 29, 1969 - INOCENCIA DELUAO, ET AL. v. NICANOR CASTEEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23857 August 29, 1969 - INSULAR LUMBER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25407 August 29, 1969 - PILAR M. NORMANDY, ET AL. v. CALIXTO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25180 August 29, 1969 - MARTINIANO P. VIVO v. RICARDO C. PUNO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24318 August 29, 1969 - BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS, ET AL. v. RICMA TRADING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29264 August 29, 1969 - BARBARA LOMBOS RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division), ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26442 August 29, 1969 - MANUELA S. FORMENTO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.