G.R. No. L-33019 July 1, 1978
MANUEL B. SYQUIO, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Communications, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE ALBERTO J. FRANCISCO, in his capacity as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch IX, EMIGDIO FERNANDEZ, JESUS MACROHON, BELEN FERNANDEZ, and MARIA PUNO, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Manuel B. Syquio, as Acting Secretary of the Department of Public Works and Communications, initiated this certiorari and prohibition proceeding to nullify an order issued by respondent Judge Alberto J. Francisco. The judge’s order restrained an investigator designated by Secretary Syquio from proceeding with an administrative inquiry into a complaint filed against the private respondents, who were employees of the Bureau of Public Highways. Respondent Judge justified the restraining order on the ground that the Commissioner of Public Highways had already commenced his own investigation into the same matter, thereby allegedly precluding the department head from conducting a separate inquiry.
The core legal contention of the petitioner was that, as department head and an alter ego of the President, he possessed the constitutional and statutory authority under the Administrative Code to directly investigate administrative charges against bureau employees. He argued that the pending investigation by the Commissioner was not a legal bar to his exercise of this supervisory power. The respondents, in their answer, did not directly confront this issue of the department head’s authority, focusing instead on claims of due process violations for the permanent employees involved.

ISSUE

The principal issue was whether a department head, as an alter ego of the President, retains the authority to conduct an administrative investigation of subordinate bureau employees despite the existence of a pending investigation already initiated by the bureau commissioner.

RULING

The Supreme Court did not reach a substantive ruling on the merits of the legal issue presented. During the protracted pendency of the case, significant intervening events occurred that altered the factual landscape. In a resolution dated November 11, 1977, the Court noted that the petitioner was no longer the Acting Secretary and the respondent judge had ceased to be a member of the judiciary. It then required the petitioner to inform the Court of the status of the case and whether it had become moot.
In a Compliance dated April 20, 1978, the Solicitor General reported that the status of the private respondents had materially changed: Emigdio Fernandez had retired and was deceased; Jesus Macrohon was no longer connected with the office and was reportedly employed abroad; and Belen Fernandez and Maria Puno had been reinstated and had voluntarily submitted to a formal administrative investigation by the Department of Public Highways, with their cases pending decision. Given these developments, particularly the reinstatement and submission to investigation of two respondents and the severance from service of the others, the factual controversy that gave rise to the petition had been extinguished. Consequently, the Court held that a resolution on the substantive legal question was no longer necessary or decisive. The petition was dismissed for having become moot and academic.