G.R. No. 225301, June 2, 2020
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THE UNDERSECRETARY OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION GROUP, MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE, AND THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICE, PETITIONERS, VS. DANILO B. ENRIQUEZ, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

The case involves the disciplinary authority over a presidential appointee. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) conducted a preliminary investigation and filed a formal charge against the respondent, Danilo B. Enriquez. The lower court nullified the proceedings subsequent to the Formal Charge.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of a department has the authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings, including the filing of a formal charge and imposition of penalties, against a presidential appointee.

RULING

The Concurring and Dissenting Opinion of Justice Caguioa states that the petition should be dismissed for lack of merit. The opinion holds that disciplinary authority over presidential appointees belongs concurrently to the Office of the President (OP) and the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB). The conduct of a formal investigation subsequent to the filing of a complaint or Formal Charge, as contemplated under Sections 47 to 52 of the Administrative Code of 1987, is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the OP and OMB. However, a Department Secretary has the inherent power, derived from Sections 6 and 7 of the Administrative Code concerning supervision and control, to conduct a preliminary investigation of a subordinate presidential appointee short of taking disciplinary action (e.g., placing under preventive suspension or filing a formal charge). This preliminary investigation is for purposes of determining whether a complaint should be filed or referred to the proper disciplining authority. The provisions of Sections 46 to 52 of the Administrative Code relating to the “disciplining authority” for presidential appointees must be read to pertain to the OP and OMB, not the Department Secretary. While the doctrine of qualified political agency may justify a Secretary’s exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction, it is limited to actions short of imposing penalties, especially in light of subsequent executive issuances where the President has decided to directly take cognizance of complaints against presidential appointees. The opinion concludes that the preliminary investigation by the DTI Secretary was authorized, but the proceedings subsequent to the Formal Charge were correctly nullified by the lower court, consistent with the rule in Baculi v. Office of the President.