G.R. No. L-36479 February 28, 1978
JUSTINO L. DAVID, petitioner-appellant, vs. HON. MAYOR ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ATTY. LUIS L. ALVAREZ, ATTY. JOVITA A. PADLAN and ATTY. BILLY MILLARES, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Justino L. David, a permanent civil service employee and Chief of Section in the Office of the City Treasurer of Manila, sought to annul the administrative proceedings (Administrative Case No. 22, Series of 1970) initiated against him by Mayor Antonio J. Villegas. The charge stemmed from complaints of dishonesty in his application for a notarial commission. David argued that the Mayor lacked jurisdiction to investigate him, contending that under the Revised Administrative Code, the Secretary of Finance held supervisory authority over the City Treasurer’s Office and thus exclusive investigatory power. He further asserted the administrative complaint was void for not being subscribed and sworn to by the complainant, Atty. Jovita Padlan, as required by civil service rules.
The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed David’s petition for certiorari and prohibition. On appeal, the Court of Appeals certified the case to the Supreme Court, as it presented pure questions of law regarding the proper interpreting authority and the validity of the complaint’s form.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) Whether the Mayor of Manila or the Secretary of Finance had jurisdiction to investigate an administrative charge against a city employee in the Office of the City Treasurer; and (2) Whether the administrative complaint was invalid for not being a sworn written complaint.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, upholding the Mayor’s jurisdiction and the validity of the proceedings. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court applied the principle that a special law prevails over a general law. The Revised Charter of Manila (Republic Act 409), a special and later law, expressly vests in the City Mayor “direct supervision and control” over the Office of the City Treasurer. This specific grant supersedes the general supervisory authority of the Secretary of Finance over local financial agencies under the Revised Administrative Code. The power to appoint carries with it the inherent power to investigate and discipline. Since Mayor Villegas appointed David, he possessed the correlative authority to investigate him, subject to review by the Commissioner of Civil Service.
Regarding the complaint’s form, the Court ruled the requirement for a subscribed and sworn complaint is not absolute. The administrative case was validly initiated because Mayor Villegas filed the charge motu proprio through a memorandum order based on the allegations. When an administrative charge is instituted by the head of office on his own initiative, the formal prerequisite of a verified complaint is dispensed with. The Mayor, as the disciplining authority, had the discretion to act on the matter in the interest of the service, even on an unsworn letter-complaint. Therefore, no grave abuse of discretion attended the proceedings.