GR L 18849; (June, 1963) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-18849. June 29, 1963. BERNARDO ESTOESTA, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR and THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF AGOO, LA UNION, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Bernardo Estoesta, the Chief of Police of Agoo, La Union, was suspended in November 1958 due to administrative charges filed by the Municipal Mayor. After a formal hearing and trial before the municipal council, the case was submitted for decision on January 24, 1959. The council then created a committee, chaired by the Mayor, to draft the decision. In its session on February 28, 1959, the municipal council unanimously approved Resolution No. 26, which adopted the committee’s draft, proclaimed Estoesta guilty, and imposed the penalty of forced resignation, considering him resigned as of his suspension date. The Commissioner of Civil Service upheld this verdict.
Approximately a year and a half after the imposition of the penalty, on September 16, 1960, Estoesta filed a “Motion for Reinstatement” with the municipal council. After this was apparently ignored, he filed a petition for declaratory relief, certiorari, and mandamus with the Court of First Instance of La Union. The trial court granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss, prompting Estoesta’s appeal.
ISSUE
The sole issue is whether Bernardo Estoesta was legally separated from the service.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that Estoesta’s separation was legal. The Court rejected his contention that the hearing and decision-making were illegally delegated to a committee. The records, including Estoesta’s own “Motion for Reinstatement,” admitted that the administrative charges were heard and tried by the entire municipal council (the former Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilors). Resolution No. 26 clearly stated that the committee was created after the council had already reached a unanimous verdict of guilt through secret ballot and determined the penalty. The committee’s role was merely to pen the draft of the written decision for clarity, which was then unanimously approved and signed by all council members. The decision was thus made by the council as a body, not by the committee, in compliance with the law.
Furthermore, the Court held that Estoesta forfeited his right to seek reinstatement due to laches. He waited about one and a half years after the penalty was imposed before filing his motion for reinstatement. Consistent with established public policy, actions for reinstatement to a civil service position must be filed within one year from the date of separation. His delay was therefore fatal to his cause. The order of dismissal was affirmed, with costs against the appellant.