GR L 20281; (November, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-20281 November 29, 1965
Domingo Maloga, petitioner, vs. Vicente G. Gella, Dalmacio C. Gener and Meliton Reyes, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Domingo Maloga, the National Cashier of the Bureau of Treasury, was required by respondent Vicente G. Gella, the Treasurer of the Philippines, to explain within 72 hours why he should not be charged administratively. Dissatisfied with Maloga’s explanation, Gella, in an unverified letter-complaint dated March 7, 1962, charged him with grave misconduct in office, relieved him of his position, and required him to answer. Maloga argued the complaint was null and void for not being sworn to, as required by Section 32 of Republic Act No. 2260 . Gella, relying on Executive Order No. 370, series of 1941, which exempts a department head from verifying a complaint against a subordinate, designated respondents Dalmacio C. Gener and Meliton Reyes as hearing officer and prosecutor, respectively, to conduct the administrative investigation. Maloga filed the present petition for certiorari to set aside the complaint and enjoin the proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether the administrative complaint filed by the head of the bureau against a subordinate must be sworn to as required by Section 32 of Republic Act No. 2260 .
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. First, petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing to the corresponding department head before filing the court action. Second, pursuant to Executive Order No. 370, when an administrative charge is preferred by the head or chief of the bureau or office concerned motu proprio, the written charge need not be sworn to, as the official is deemed to be acting in his official capacity and under his oath of office. The verification requirement under Republic Act No. 2260 applies when the complaint is filed by another person, to protect against malicious complaints. The Court cited prior rulings (Pastoriza vs. Division Superintendent of Schools and Bautista vs. Negado) that the procedure under Executive Order No. 370 conforms to the statutory requirement and that a formal complaint is not a prerequisite to a valid administrative investigation. Therefore, respondent Gella had authority to initiate the proceedings, and his unverified letter-complaint was valid.