Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

RUBEN A. VILLALUZ v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR, ET AL.

GR No. L-22754 15 SCRA 71 31 DECEMBER 195


B!"#$%#! A&'()o, *.+
,ACTS+
In a letter dated January 28, 1960, Congressman Joaquin R. Roces as Chairman of the Committee on
ood o!ernment of the "ouse of Re#resentati!es informed the $resident of the $hili##ines of the findings
made %y his Committee regarding the alleged gross mismanagement and inefficiency committed %y Ru%en
&illalu' (#etitioner) in *otor &ehicles +ffice. ,he allegations -ere as follo-s. 1) mal#ractice in office resulting
in huge losses to the go!ernment/ 2) failure to correct inadequate controls or intentional toleration of the same,
facilitating there%y the commission of graft and corru#tion/ and 0) negligence to remedy unsatisfactory
accounting. Cong. Roces recommended the re#lacement of &illalu', his assistant chief 1urelio de 2eon, and a
com#lete re!am# of the offices coming under the *otor &ehicles +ffice.
,hrough the 3ecretary of $u%lic 4or5s and Communications, &illalu' -as furnished a co#y of the
#etition requiring him to e6#lain -ithin 72 hours -hy no administrati!e action should %e ta5en against him.
&illalu' denied all the charges. +n 8e%ruary 19, 1960, :6ecuti!e 3ecretary ;atalio $. Castillo sus#ended
&illalu' ha!ing created an in!estigating committee -ith the only #ur#ose of in!estigating the charges against
#etitioner and his assistant. 1fter the in!estigation, the $resident issued 1dministrati!e +rder ;o. 002 decreeing
the remo!al from office of the #etitioner. 1#olonio $onio -as a##ointed in his stead.
&illalu' filed a motion for reconsideration and<or reinstatement -hich -as denied. "ence, he filed a
#etition in this Court see5ing reinstatement as the 1dministrator of the *otor &ehicles +ffice.
ISSUE+ 4hether or not the $resident has =urisdiction to in!estigate and remo!e the 1dministrator from office
e!en if the latter is under the control and su#er!ision of the >e#artment of $u%lic 4or5s.
-ELD+
,here is no error of #rocedure committed %y res#ondents insofar as the in!estigation and disci#linary
action ta5en against #etitioner. ?eing a #residential a##ointee, the 1dministrator of the *otor &ehicles +ffice
%elongs to the non@com#etiti!e or unclassified ser!ice of the go!ernment. 1s such, he can only %e in!estigated
and remo!ed from office after due hearing %y the $resident of the $hili##ines under the #rinci#le that Athe
#o-er to remo!e is inherent in the #o-er to a##ointB as can %e im#lied from 3ection 9 of Re#u%lic 1ct ;o.
2260 (1n act to amend and re!ise the la-s relati!e to $hili##ine Ci!il 3er!ice). Consequently, the
Commissioner of Ci!il 3er!ice is -ithout =urisdiction to hear and decide the administrati!e charges filed against
the 1dministrator. ,he authority of Commissioner to #ass u#on questions of sus#ension, se#aration or remo!al
can only %e e6ercised -ith referenced to #ermanent officials and em#loyees in the classified ser!ice.
$etition is denied.