G.R. No. L-23363; May 31, 1967
ARTURO H. TROCIO, petitioner-appellant, vs. ABELARDO SUBIDO, JORLE LABAYO, JOSE QUIROLGICO, ANTONIO LUSPO and GREGORIO BALANZA, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

In 1961, petitioner Arturo Trocio, Municipal Treasurer of Mambajao, Camiguin, Misamis Oriental, was administratively charged for violating Section 14 of the 1954 Revised Manual of Instructions to Treasurers and Section 614 of the Revised Administrative Code, specifically for paying cash items (National and Provincial payrolls amounting to P8,993.99) without the express approval of the Provincial Treasurer. On June 21, 1961, the Civil Service Commissioner found him guilty and imposed a fine equivalent to 15 days’ pay, a reprimand, a warning, and a transfer without demotion in rank or salary “in the interest of the service.” Trocio moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the Commissioner’s resolution on May 27, 1964, ordering immediate execution of the decision as Trocio had not yet paid the fine or been transferred. The Provincial Treasurer of Misamis Oriental, upon indorsement from the Undersecretary of Finance, issued a directive on June 3, 1964, reprimanding and warning Trocio, ordering payment of the fine, and detailing him for assignment in the office of the Provincial Treasurer in Cagayan de Oro City, without demotion. On the same date, the Provincial Treasurer designated Gregorio Balanza as officer-in-charge of the Municipal Treasurer’s office. Trocio refused to comply, arguing the decision was illegal. On June 15, 1964, he appealed to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, claiming lack of due process, ability to justify his acts, and that the decision was not yet final and executory (as he had 30 days to appeal under Section 36 of Republic Act 2260) and that his transfer was unlawful without his consent. On June 20, 1964, Trocio filed a petition for prohibition with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental to prevent execution of the decision. The court issued a preliminary injunction but later dismissed the petition and dissolved the injunction, upholding the Commissioner’s authority to execute the decision pending appeal and Trocio’s recall. Trocio appealed to the Supreme Court, raising pure questions of law.

ISSUE

Whether the Commissioner of Civil Service has the authority to enforce his decision pending appeal to the Civil Service Board of Appeals, and if so, whether such execution was proper in this case.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal from the lower court. The Court held that under Rule XVIII, Section 28 of the Revised Civil Service Rules, the Commissioner of Civil Service has discretionary authority to order execution of his decision pending appeal if public interest so warrants. The Court rejected Trocio’s argument that “public interest” refers only to the interest of the Republic of the Philippines (national interest) and not that of Mambajao, Camiguin subprovince. It ruled that as municipal treasurer, Trocio handled national, provincial, and municipal funds, thus affecting the interest of the Republic or the “community at large.” The determination of when public interest warrants execution is discretionary with the Commissioner, and Trocio failed to show grave abuse of discretion in this case. The Court also clarified that the case of Cabigao v. Del Rosario did not require “special reasons” for execution, as Section 28 does not specify such a requirement, and any mention of special reasons in that case was obiter dictum. The Court declined to rule on the correctness or legality of the Commissioner’s decision on the merits, as that matter should be resolved by the Civil Service Board of Appeals. The only issue before the Court was the legality of the execution pending appeal, which was upheld. Costs were imposed against petitioner-appellant.