GR L 21286; (February, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21286 February 28, 1969
FILEMON CRUZ, petitioner, vs. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Filemon Cruz was employed as a clerk expediter with the respondent Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). In July 1960, he was preventively suspended and administrative charges for misconduct or dishonesty were filed against him. Contrary to his representation in his verified petition for mandamus, the GSIS did not forego the administrative proceedings. The GSIS Special Board of Inquiry formally heard the case, where petitioner testified on his own behalf and was represented by counsel. The Board found him guilty of dishonesty and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service, recommending he be considered resigned from the service effective his preventive suspension date. The GSIS Board of Trustees approved this recommendation on March 15, 1961, and petitioner was duly notified. Petitioner was also criminally charged in Manila and Bulacan courts for estafa, both of which were later dismissed. The Bulacan court initially ordered his reinstatement but later deleted that portion from its order. Petitioner, alleging continuous suspension and deprivation of due process, filed this mandamus action to compel his reinstatement.
ISSUE
Whether the writ of mandamus should issue to compel the GSIS to reinstate petitioner Filemon Cruz to his former position.
RULING
No. The petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court found no basis for the petition in fact and in law. Petitioner was not unlawfully excluded from his position but was legally separated for cause after due administrative hearing where he appeared with counsel. The penalty of being “considered resigned” is a form of dismissal. Therefore, respondent GSIS owed him no duty enforceable by mandamus. The Court further noted that petitioner and his counsel failed to deal with the Court with truth and candor, as the verified petition concealed the fact of his separation after due hearing and instead falsely alleged continuous suspension without an opportunity to defend himself. Citing the admonition in Batangas-Laguna-Tayabas Bus Co. v. Cadiao, the Court imposed treble costs against the petitioner and his counsel for their failure in their duty of candid disclosure to the Court.