Felipe B. Pagkanluñgan v. Manuel de La Fuente, et al.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-4364           October 7, 1952

FELIPE B. PAGKANLUÑGAN, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
HON. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, as Mayor, City of Manila; HON. MARCELINO SARMIENTO, as Treasurer, City of Manila; and HON. AQUILINO CALIXTO, as Chairman of the City Treasury Anti-Graft and Corruption Committee,respondents-appellees.

City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant Fiscal Arsenio Nañawa for appellees.
Abelardo Subido as amicus curiae.

PADILLA,J.:

This is an appeal from a judgement rendered by the Court of First Instance of Manila denying a petition for a writ of prohibition andmandamusfiled by Felipe B. Pagkanluñgan against the City Mayor, City Treasurer, and Assistant City Treasurer, of Manila.

The facts which are not disputed are as follows:

The ruling in the case ofFrancia vs. Subido,^*47 Off. Gaz., (No. 12, Supp.) 296, does not apply to the herein petitioner, because unlike the City Auditor the petitioner is an employee appointed by the Mayor. There, the respondent as Chief of the division of Investigation in the Office of the city mayor had no power to investigate an officer or employee not appointed by the Mayor and could not exercise the powers and perform the duties vested in the City Fiscal. Here, the Mayor is clothed with the authority and power to investigate the petitioner who is an employee not appointed by the President of the Philippines. Section 11 (e) of the Rep. Act No. 409, the charter of the City of Manila which took effect on 18 June 1449, vests in the Mayor the power and duty "to see that executive officers and employees of the city properly discharge their respective duties" and section 22 thereof empowers him to suspend and remove, subject to appeal to the Secretary of the Interior, any City Officer or employee not appointed by the President of the Philippines and to recommend to the latter the suspension or removal of any city officer appointed by him. The authority and power to make an inquiry or to conduct an investigation, to the end that the power to suspend and remove expressly granted may justify and fairly exercised, is implied in the power expressly granted. Section 38 of Republic Act 409, which provides that the City Fiscal is empowered to investigate any neglect or misconduct in office brought to his knowledge and to report to the Mayor thereon, does not deprive the latter of the authority and power to conduct an investigation under section 22 of the same Act. The powers vested in the Mayor and the City Fiscal may co-exist.

Our attention has not been called to nor have we found any statute, executive order or regulation promulgated pursuant to law, which makes it the duty of the suspending officer to reinstate a suspended subordinate officer or employee after two months of suspension and to pay or to order the salary paid to the latter. Section 695 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Com. Acts No. 177 and 598, which provides that the Commissioner of Civil Service (now city mayor) "may, for neglect of duty or violation of reasonable office regulations, . . . remove any subordinate officer or employee from the service, suspend him without pay for not more than two months . . ." contemplates a final action by the Commissioner (Mayor) after inquiry and has no referrence to limitation of the period of suspension of the suspended subordinate officer or employee, as found in section 2272 of the same Code, as amended, dealing with suspension of members of the municipal police. Section 260 of the same Code does not limit the suspension of the payment of salary to two months but expressly provides that during suspension the salary shall not be paid, subject to "the application of the disciplinary provisions of section six hundred and ninety-five hereof."

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the appellant.

Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, Montemayor, Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ.,concur.

Footnotes