G.R. No. L-23523 November 18, 1967
THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, petitioner, vs. DOROTEO DE GUZMAN, CFI Judge, Zamboanga del Norte, and ROBERTO P. POCULAN, Mayor of Rizal, Zamboanga del Norte, respondents.

FACTS

On March 7, 1963, then Provincial Governor Guadalupe C. Adaza instituted Administrative Case No. 3 against Municipal Mayor Roberto P. Poculan for abuse of authority, oppression, and maladministration. The charge was based on an incident on February 23, 1963, where Poculan allegedly assaulted and killed Antonio Arapoc. On the same day, Governor Adaza issued an executive order suspending Poculan for thirty days. After the suspension period, Poculan was reinstated. The administrative case remained pending at the close of Poculan’s term. Poculan was reelected in the 1963 local elections. A new Provincial Board, under a new governor, proceeded with the investigation and, on February 14, 1964, passed Resolution No. 42-A ordering Poculan’s suspension for two years. Poculan appealed to the President. On March 13, 1964, the governor issued an executive order implementing the suspension. Poculan filed an action for Injunction with the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga del Norte, which issued a preliminary injunction. The lower court rendered judgment on July 3, 1964, declaring the Board’s suspension resolution null and void, ruling that Poculan’s reelection had purged him of the administrative charges from his prior term. The Provincial Board filed the instant petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Provincial Board of Zamboanga del Norte may proceed with the administrative investigation of a reelected mayor for misconduct allegedly committed during his prior term of office.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and denied the petition for certiorari. The Court held that the Provincial Board could not administratively proceed against Mayor Poculan. The alleged illegal killing was not essentially connected with the performance of his official duties. Pursuant to Section 2188 of the Revised Administrative Code, for crimes involving moral turpitude, a final judgment of conviction is required before administrative proceedings can be initiated. Since no such final judgment existed against Poculan, the administrative proceeding must be deferred. The averments of “grave abuse of authority” and “intent to oppress” were part and parcel of the alleged criminal offense and should be passed upon in the corresponding criminal case. The Court also found no merit in the petitioner’s contention regarding the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as the principle does not apply where the question is purely legal or where such remedies would be futile.