JOSON V TORRES

mahaba to! kaya walang magrereklamo! 40 pages! bwahaha!!!

this is about... V!"#"T$ O% T&E S'S(ENS"ON O% (ET"T"ONER E#'R#O
JOSON S )OVERNOR O% N'EV E*"J.
+&T &((ENE# ,E%ORE JOSON %"!E# (ET"T"ON TO T&E S'(RE-E
*O'RT. /kekwento ko buong buhay niya...0
pri1ate respon2ents 3ile2 a letter45omplaint to the o33i5e o3 the presi2ent 5harging
6oson with gra1e mis5on2u5t an2 abuse o3 authority.
a55or2ing to the respon2ents7 in one o3 the Sangguniang (anlalawigan /S(0
meeting7 Joson barge2 into the hall in or2er to harass them
into appro1ing the loan o3 890 million pesos 3rom the (N,. they 2i2 not appro1e
the loan 3or there is still a pen2ing obligation o3 :0 million pesos an2 they 5annot
a33or2 to enter into another obligation.
Thus7 Se5retary o3 "nterior an2 !o5al )o1ernment ,arbers summone2 both
parties to a settlement7 but both 2i2 not 5omply with the 5ompromise.
#"!) aske2 both parties to 3ile their answers with regar2 to the non4
settlement o3 the issue. Joson keeps on asking 3or an e;tension to 3ile his answer
3or three times7 an2 his re<uest was grante2 3or three times. &owe1er7 e1en on
the thir2 time7 he ha2 not still 3ile2 his answer7 an2 #"!) 2e5lare2 that Joson
2eeme2 wai1e2 his right to 3ile his answer by an or2er o3 #e3ault by #"!).
/parang *i1il *o2e
art = noh!.!0
&owe1er7 he was re5onsi2ere2 but same thing happene2. 'n2erse5retary
San5he> reinstate2 the or2er o3 2e3ault an2 2ire5te2 pri1ate respon2ents to
present their e1i2en5e e;4parte. petitioner7 through 5ounsel7 3ile2 a ?-otion to
#ismiss.? (etitioner allege2 that the letter45omplaint was not 1eri3ie2 on the 2ay it
was 3ile2 with the O33i5e o3 the (resi2ent@ an2 that the #"!) ha2 no 6uris2i5tion
o1er the 5ase an2 no authority to re<uire him7 to answer the 5omplaint. on
re5ommen2ation o3 Se5retary ,arbers7 E;e5uti1e Se5retary Ruben Torres issue2
an or2er7 by authority o3 the (resi2ent7 pla5ing petitioner un2er pre1enti1e
suspension 3or si;ty /=00 2ays pen2ing in1estigation o3 the 5harges against him.
Se5retary ,arbers 2esignate2 Vi5e4)o1ernor Os5ar Tinio as 5ting )o1ernor
until su5h time as petitionerAs temporary legal in5apa5ity shall ha1e 5ease2 to
e;ist.
petitioner 3ile2 a petition 3or 5ertiorari an2 prohibition with the
*ourt o3 ppeals 5hallenging the or2er o3 pre1enti1e suspension an2 the or2er o3
2e3ault. 'n2erse5retary San5he> issue2 an or2er 2enying petitionerAs ?-otion to
#ismiss? an2 ?'rgent E;4(arte -otion 3or Re5onsi2eration.?
(etitioner allege2 that Vi5e4)o1ernor Tinio was enrage2 at the members o3 the
Sangguniang (anlalawigan who were in petitionerAs party be5ause they re3use2
to pla5e on the agen2a the rati3i5ation o3 the propose2 (890 million loan o3 the
pro1in5e. &e sai2 that like Vi5e4)o1ernor Tinio7 he was always a55ompanie2 by
his o33i5ial se5urity es5orts whene1er he reporte2 3or work.
On September 887 8BB:7 petitioner 3ile2 an ?'rgent -otion 3or Re5onsi2eration?
o3 the or2er o3 ugust C07 8BB: 2enying his motion to 2ismiss. The ?'rgent
-otion 3or Re5onsi2eration? was re6e5te2 by 'n2erse5retary San5he> on
O5tober D7 8BB:. 'n2erse5retary San5he>7 howe1er7 grante2 the ?-otion to !i3t
#e3ault Or2er an2 to 2mit nswer 2 *autelam? an2 a2mitte2 the ?nswer 2
*autelam? as petitionerAs position paper pursuant to the or2er o3 ugust C07
8BB:. petitioner 3ile2 a ?-otion to *on2u5t %ormal "n1estigation.?
(etitioner praye2 that a 3ormal in1estigation o3 his 5ase be
5on2u5te2 pursuant to the pro1isions o3 the !o5al )o1ernment *o2e o3 8BB8 an2
Rule : o3 2ministrati1e Or2er No. CE. * 2ismisse2 JosonAs petition.
S +FS7 ETO N $'N) S S*G
the #"!) 2enie2 petitionerAs ?-otion to *on2u5t %ormal "n1estigation?.
S* issue2 TRO en6oining implementation o3 the or2er o3 E;e5. Se5. Ruben
Torres /about 2un sa pre1enti1e suspension ni Joson0
55or2ing to the respon2ents7 howe1er7 the position o3 Joson was alrea2y 1este2
by Se5. ,arbers to V) Tinio7 an2 the TRO ha2 lost its purpose an2 e33e5ti1ity.
WHAT GOVERNS ADMINISTRATIVE DISCIPLINING PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST ELECTIVE LOCAL OFFICIALS?
2ministrati1e 2is5iplinary pro5ee2ings against ele5ti1e lo5al o33i5ials are
go1erne2 by the !o5al )o1ernment *o2e o3 8BB87 the Rules an2 Regulations
"mplementing the !o5al )o1ernment *o2e o3 8BB87 an2 2ministrati1e Or2er No.
CE entitle2 ?(res5ribing the Rules an2 (ro5e2ures on the "n1estigation o3
2ministrati1e #is5iplinary *ases gainst Ele5ti1e !o5al O33i5ials o3 (ro1in5es7
&ighly 'rbani>e2 *ities7 "n2epen2ent *omponent *ities7 an2 *ities an2
-uni5ipalities in -etropolitan -anila.? 5omplaint against an ele5ti1e pro1in5ial
or 5ity o33i5ial must be 3ile2 with the O33i5e o3 the (resi2ent. 5omplaint against
an ele5ti1e muni5ipal o33i5ial must be 3ile2 with the Sangguniang (anlalawigan
while that o3 a barangay o33i5ial must be 3ile2 be3ore the Sangguniang
(anlungso2 or Sangguniang ,ayan. (etitioner 5onten2e2 that the letter4
5omplaint submitte2 to the o33i5e o3 the (res was not 1eri3ie2 by the respon2ents.
ssuming7 nonetheless7 that the letter45omplaint was un1eri3ie2 when submitte2
to the O33i5e o3 the (resi2ent7 the 2e3e5t was not 3atal.
The re<uirement o3 1eri3i5ation was 2eeme2 wai1e2 by the (resi2ent himsel3
when he a5te2 on the 5omplaint. The la5k o3 1eri3i5ation is a mere 3ormal 2e3e5t.
petitioner <uestions the 6uris2i5tion an2 authority o3 the #"!) Se5retary o1er the
5ase. &e 5onten2s that un2er the law7 it is the O33i5e o3 the (resi2ent that has
6uris2i5tion o1er the letter4 5omplaint an2 that the *ourt o3 ppeals erre2 in
applying the alter4 ego prin5iple be5ause the power to 2is5ipline ele5ti1e lo5al
o33i5ials lies with the (resi2ent7 not with the #"!) Se5retary.
Juris2i5tion o1er a2ministrati1e 2is5iplinary a5tions against ele5ti1e lo5al o33i5ials
is lo2ge2 in two authoritiesG the
#is5iplining uthority an2 the "n1estigating uthority. (ursuant to O CE7 the
#is5iplining uthority is the (resi2ent o3 the (hilippines7 whether a5ting by
himsel3 or through the E;e5uti1e Se5retary. The Se5retary o3 the "nterior an2
!o5al )o1ernment is the "n1estigating uthority7 who may a5t by himsel3 or
5onstitute an "n1estigating *ommittee. The Se5retary o3 the #"!)7 howe1er7 is
not the e;5lusi1e "n1estigating uthority. "n lieu o3 the #"!) Se5retary7 the
#is5iplinary uthority may 2esignate a Spe5ial "n1estigating *ommittee.
The power o3 the (resi2ent o1er a2ministrati1e 2is5iplinary 5ases against ele5ti1e
lo5al o33i5ials is 2eri1e2 3rom his power o3 general super1ision o1er lo5al
go1ernments. The (resi2entAs power o3 general super1ision means no more than
the power o3 ensuring that laws are 3aith3ully e;e5ute27 or that subor2inate
o33i5ers a5t
within the law. Super1ision is not in5ompatible with 2is5ipline.
The power to 2is5ipline e1i2ently in5lu2es the power to in1estigate. s the
#is5iplining uthority7 the (resi2ent has the power 2eri1e2 3rom the *onstitution
itsel3 to in1estigate 5omplaints against lo5al go1ernment o33i5ials. .O. No. CE7
howe1er7 2elegates the power to in1estigate to the #"!) or a Spe5ial
"n1estigating *ommittee7 as may be 5onstitute2 by the #is5iplining uthority.
This is not un2ue 2elegation7 5ontrary to petitioner JosonAs 5laim. The (resi2ent
remains the #is5iplining uthority. +hat is 2elegate2 is the power to in1estigate7
not the power to 2is5ipline.
-oreo1er7 the power o3 the #"!) to in1estigate a2ministrati1e 5omplaints is
base2 on the alter4ego prin5iple or the 2o5trine o3 <uali3ie2 politi5al agen5y.
/H'!"%"E# POLITICAL AGENCY4 2un s 5ase 2ati ni Orbos4 2e5ision o3
e;e5uti1e o33i5ials is 1ali2 as i3 it is
the 2e5ision o3 the (res0.
REQUIREMENT: the 2is5iplining authority /(resi2ent0 will be the one to ask the
respon2ent to 3ile his answer. +&T &((ENE# "N T&"S *SEG the
in1estigating authority /#"!)0 was the one who aske2 Joson to 3ile his answer.
&O+EVER7 what happene2 is not 3atal. The presi2ent 3oun2 the 5omplaint
su33i5ient in 3orm an2 substan5e to warrant its 3urther in1estigation. petitioner also
5laims that #"!) erre2 in 2e5laring him in 2e3ault 3or 3iling a motion to 2ismiss.
&e alleges that a motion to 2ismiss is not a plea2ing prohibite2 by the law or the
rules an2 there3ore #"!) Se5 shoul2 ha1e 5onsi2ere2 it an2 gi1en him time to 3ile
his answer.
"t is true that a motion to 2ismiss is not a plea2ing prohibite2 un2er the !o5al
)o1ernment *o2e o3 8BB8 nor in .O. No. CE. (etitioner7 howe1er7 was
instru5te2 not to 3ile a motion to 2ismiss
in the or2er to 3ile answer. Thri5e7 he re<ueste2 3or e;tension o3 time to 3ile his
answer 5iting as reasons the sear5h 3or 5ompetent 5ounsel an2 the 2eman2s o3
his o33i5ial 2uties. n27 thri5e7 his re<uests were grante2. E1en the or2er o3
2e3ault was re5onsi2ere2 an2 petitioner was gi1en a22itional time to 3ile answer.
3ter al
the re<uests an2 se1en months later7 he 3ile2 a motion to 2ismiss! /e;5lamation
mark supplie2!0
(etitioner7 in 3a5t7 3ile2 his answer nine /B0 months a3ter the
3irst noti5e. "n2ee27 this was more than su33i5ient time 3or petitioner to 5omply with
the or2er to 3ile answer. #"!) 2i2 not err in re5ommen2ing to the #is5iplining
uthority his pre1enti1e suspension 2uring the in1estigation. (re1enti1e
suspension is authori>e2 un2er Se5tion =E o3 the !o5al )o1ernment *o2e.
pre1enti1e suspension may be impose2 by the #is5iplining uthority at any time
/a0 a3ter the issues are 6oine2@ /b0 when the e1i2en5e
o3 guilt is strong@ an2 /50 gi1en the gra1ity o3 the o33ense7 there
is great probability that the respon2ent7 who 5ontinues to hol2 o33i5e7 5oul2
in3luen5e the witnesses or pose a threat to the sa3ety an2 integrity o3 the re5or2s
an2 other e1i2en5e. ll were 5omplie2 in the 5ase o3 Joson.
(etitioner 5laims that the suspension was ma2e without 3ormal in1estigation
pursuant to the pro1isions o3 Rule : o3 .O. No. CE.
The 2enial o3 petitionerAs -otion to *on2u5t %ormal "n1estigation is erroneous.
(etitionerAs right to a 3ormal in1estigation is spelle2
out in the 3ollowing pro1isions o3 .O. No. CE7 1i>G
Sec. 3 Evala!"#$. +ithin twenty /C00 2ays 3rom re5eipt o3 the 5omplaint an2
answer7 the "n1estigating uthority shall 2etermine whether there is a prima 3a5ie
5ase to warrant the institution o3 3ormal a2ministrati1e pro5ee2ings.
3ter the preliminary 5on3eren5e7 the "n1estigating uthority shall issue an or2er
re5iting the matters taken up thereon an2 shall s5he2ule the 3ormal in1estigation
within ten /800 2ays 3rom its issuan5e7 unless a later 2ate is mutually agree2 in
writing by the parties 5on5erne2.
The re6e5tion o3 petitionerAs right to a 3ormal in1estigation 2enie2 him pro5e2ural
2ue pro5ess. Se5tion 9 o3 .O. No. CE pro1i2es that at the preliminary
5on3eren5e7 the "n1estigating uthority shall summon the parties to 5onsi2er
whether they 2esire a 3ormal in1estigation. This pro1ision 2oes not gi1e the
"n1estigating uthority the 2is5retion to 2etermine whether a 3ormal in1estigation
woul2 be 5on2u5te2. The re5or2s show that petitioner 3ile2 a motion 3or 3ormal
in1estigation. s respon2ent7 he is a55or2e2 se1eral
rights un2er the law.
The lo5al ele5ti1e o33i5ial has the /80 the right to appear an2 2e3en2 himsel3 in
person or by 5ounsel@ /C0 the right to 5on3ront an2 5ross4e;amine the witnesses
against him@ an2 /E0 the right to 5ompulsory atten2an5e o3 witness an2 the
pro2u5tion o3 2o5umentary e1i2en5e. /O CE an2 !)*0
+hen he was grante2 to 3ile an answer 2 *aetelum7 it was re5ogni>e2 only as a
(OS"T"ON ((ER. (osition papers are o3ten4times prepare2 with the assistan5e
o3 lawyers an2 their art3ul preparation 5an make the 2is5o1ery o3 truth 2i33i5ult.
The pro5e2ure o3 re<uiring position papers in lieu o3 a hearing in a2ministrati1e
5ases is e;pressly allowe2 with respe5t to appointi1e o33i5ials but not to those
ele5te2. Suspension an2 remo1al are impose2 only a3ter the ele5ti1e o33i5ial is
a55or2e2 his rights an2 the e1i2en5e against him strongly 2i5tates their
imposition.
"N V"E+ +&EREO%7 the Resolution o3 January D7 8BBD o3 the publi5 respon2ent
E;e5uti1e Se5retary is 2e5lare2 null an2 1oi2 an2 is set asi2e. No *ost.