SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-6538 May 10, 1954

PABLO BURGUETE, Petitioner, vs. JOVENCIO Q. MAYOR, as Provincial Governor of Romblon, and ESTEBAN B. MONTESA, as Acting Municipal Mayor of Badajoz, Romblon, Respondents.

Aguedo F. Agbayani, Cirilo C. Montejo and Felix B. Morada for petitioner.
Francisco H. Marcial, Provincial Fiscal of Romblon, for respondents.

JUGO, J.:

The petitioner, Pablo Burguete, is the municipal mayor of Badajoz, Province of Romblon, and was elected for that position in November, 1951; the respondent, Jovencio Q. Mayor, is the provincial governor of Romblon; and Esteban B. Montesa, the acting municipal mayor of Badajoz, Province of Romblon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On August 21, 1952, a criminal complaint for serious slander was filed against Burguete in the justice of the peace court of Badajoz.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On October 7, 1952, the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Romblon.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On November 13, 1952, Jovencio Q. Mayor suspended the petitioner as mayor on the ground that a criminal case against him was pending, and that it was the "standing policy of the Administration to the place under suspension any elective official against whom a criminal action involving moral turpitude is pending adjudication before the competent court."chanrobles virtual law library

The Governor directed Esteban B. Montesa, the vice-mayor, to act as mayor.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Burguete now files in this Court a petition for mandamus and quo warranto against Mayor and Montesa.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The case for serious slander against Burguete is still, pending in the Court of First Instance.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Burguete has filed a motion to quash, but it was denied. The case could not be tried on the merits on account of the non-appearance of the witnesses for the prosecution.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

No administrative investigation by the provincial board has been conducted under section 2188 of the Administrative Code.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

The questions raised in this case are not new, as they have already been decided in the case of Lacson vs. Roque, ^* (49 Off. Gaz., 93). There it was held that the mere filing of an information for libel against a municipal officer is not a sufficient ground for dispensing him. The same may be said with regard to serious slander, which is another form of libel. Libel does not necessarily involve moral turpitude. Furthermore, it would be an easy expedient to file a criminal complaint or information against a municipal mayor for the purpose of suspending him, and the suspension would last almost indefinitely, according to the time that would elapse before the criminal case is finally terminated by conviction or acquittal. It is unnecessary to elaborate here on the reasons given for the principle, as they are set forth extensively in said decision.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Our conclusion is that the suspension of the petitioner is illegal and unjustified.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In view of the foregoing, the respondent Jovencio Q. Mayor is ordered to reinstate Pablo Burguete in his office as municipal mayor of Badajoz, Romblon, and to oust the respondent Esteban B. Montesa, as such officer, with costs against the respondents. It is so ordered.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

^* 92 Phil., 456.