G.R. No. A.M. No. 106. February 17, 1968
IRINEO A. MERCADO, complainant, vs. Commissioner ENRIQUE MEDINA, respondent.

FACTS

On August 9, 1966, Irineo Mercado filed an administrative complaint against Public Service Commission Chairman Enrique Medina, charging him with (1) non-feasance or dereliction of duty; (2) misfeasance, misconduct, and conduct unworthy of a public official; and (3) abuse of discretion and partiality. The complaint stemmed from Mercado’s allegation that bus operators (MM and JD bus companies) were overcharging passengers in Quezon City, citing a “zonal arrangement” proviso in a Commission order dated January 17, 1966, which provisionally set fares. Mercado filed a formal complaint (docketed as Case No. 66-11-OC) on January 27, 1966. Commissioner Medina conducted a hearing on March 17, 1966, and issued an order creating a committee to study the zonal system versus the total distance travelled system, postponing further hearings until the committee reported. Subsequently, a petition for certiorari (G.R. L-25798) was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Commission’s provisional fare orders. Medina then suspended proceedings in Case No. 66-11-OC pending the Supreme Court’s resolution, believing it would affect the overcharging case. After approximately 45 days of inaction following Mercado’s follow-up request, Mercado filed the present administrative case. The Supreme Court referred the matter to Justice Ramon Nolasco of the Court of Appeals for investigation, who recommended no disciplinary action but urged Medina to proceed with the hearing of Case No. 66-11-OC.

ISSUE

Whether Commissioner Enrique Medina is administratively liable for non-feasance, misfeasance, abuse of discretion, and partiality in handling the overcharging complaint (Case No. 66-11-OC).

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and absolved Commissioner Medina of all charges, adopting the findings and recommendation of Justice Nolasco.
1. On the charge of non-feasance or dereliction of duty: The Court found no willful or fraudulent neglect. Medina acted promptly by issuing a show-cause order and holding a hearing shortly after the complaint was filed. The creation of the study committee was justified to fairly resolve the issue involving the zonal and distance-based systems. However, the Court agreed with Justice Nolasco that Medina committed an error of judgment in suspending the overcharging case due to the pending certiorari petition, as the validity of the fare orders was separate from the issue of whether operators collected fares beyond authorized rates. Nevertheless, this error did not constitute dereliction of duty, which requires a willful omission.
2. On the charge of misfeasance, misconduct, and conduct unworthy of a public official: The Court found no bad faith in the alterations between Medina’s dictated order and the final written order. Medina explained that changes—such as not including a finding of overcharging or a refund directive, altering the committee composition, and expanding its scope—were corrections made while the order was still under his control, pursuant to Rule 135, Section 5(g) of the Rules of Court. The evidence did not establish that these modifications were actuated by partiality or malice.
3. On the charge of abuse of discretion and partiality: The Court held that the charges were based on suspicion and conjecture, not sufficient evidence. Medina’s actions, including the committee creation and suspension of proceedings, were not shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or partial toward the bus operators.
The Court concluded that while Medina should proceed with the hearing of Case No. 66-11-OC with reasonable dispatch, the administrative charges were unsubstantiated.