G.R. No. L-24387 February 29, 1972
RICARDO P. GOROSPE, petitioner-appellant, vs. ARTURO PADUA, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, et al., respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Ricardo P. Gorospe, the Chief of Police of Sison, Pangasinan, filed a petition for preliminary injunction with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. He sought to restrain the municipal council from proceeding with an administrative investigation against him and to secure his reinstatement. Mayor Arturo Padua had filed Administrative Case No. 1 against Gorospe on April 14, 1964, for alleged electioneering, and simultaneously suspended him from office pursuant to Republic Act 557. The municipal council proceeded with the investigation over Gorospe’s objection that jurisdiction lay with the Court of First Instance. The investigation was delayed due to postponements requested by Gorospe and a subsequent agreement to suspend proceedings pending the court’s decision on his petition for injunction.
The court a quo dismissed Gorospe’s petition. It ruled that the municipal council had jurisdiction under Republic Act 557 to investigate administrative charges against a police member, as the proceeding was purely administrative, not criminal. It also held that injunction would not lie to restrain a body performing a statutory duty. Regarding reinstatement, the lower court opined that Gorospe’s remedy was not an injunction, especially since any delay in concluding the case beyond the 60-day suspension period might be attributable to his own actions.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the municipal council had jurisdiction to investigate the administrative charge against Gorospe; and (2) whether Gorospe was entitled to reinstatement via injunction after being suspended for more than sixty days.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. On jurisdiction, the Court held that Republic Act 557 expressly vested municipal councils with the authority to investigate administrative charges against members of the municipal police. The charge of electioneering, while potentially a criminal offense, was being pursued administratively to determine fitness for office, with penalties limited to suspension or removal. Therefore, the municipal council acted within its jurisdiction, and the Court of First Instance did not have exclusive original jurisdiction over the administrative proceeding. An injunction cannot be used to enjoin a body from performing a duty mandated by law.
On the claim for reinstatement, the Court ruled that the remedy was not an action for injunction. Section 3 of Republic Act 557 provided for automatic reinstatement after sixty days of suspension unless the delay was due to the fault of the accused. The record indicated that Gorospe himself contributed to the delay by seeking postponements and by filing the court action, which halted the investigation. Thus, it was not indubitable that the sixty-day period had lapsed without his fault. The proper remedy, if entitled, would be an action to compel reinstatement. Nonetheless, the Court directed the municipal officials to forward the case records to the Police Commission, created under the new Police Act of 1966, for appropriate action and disposition, including a determination on the reinstatement issue.