G.R. No. L-24432 January 12, 1968
Nazario Equizabal, Municipal Mayor of Buhi, Camarines Sur, petitioner, vs. Hon. Apolonio G. Maleniza, Provincial Governor of Camarines Sur, and The Hon. Members of the Provincial Board of Camarines Sur, respondents.

FACTS

The Provincial Governor of Camarines Sur issued an order on January 22, 1965, suspending petitioner Municipal Mayor Nazario Equizabal due to administrative charges (Adm. Case No. 3) for oppression, maladministration, violation of the Administrative Code, serious misconduct, and neglect of duty. Petitioner received the suspension order on February 5, 1965. On February 16, 1965, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the administrative case with the provincial board. The board denied the motion on March 2, 1965, and set the hearing for March 4, 1965. Hearings in Adm. Case No. 3 were conducted on March 15, 1965, and continued to March 23, 1965. Meanwhile, on March 10, 1965, new charges were filed with the governor, who instituted Adm. Case No. 4 against petitioner. On March 12, 1965, petitioner received a new suspension order in connection with Adm. Case No. 4. In Adm. Case No. 4, two complainants filed a motion to withdraw their complaint. On March 18, 1965, petitioner moved for the outright dismissal of Adm. Case No. 4. On April 13, 1965, petitioner commenced the instant proceedings for mandamus and prohibition, seeking reinstatement effective March 12, 1965, an injunction against hearing Adm. Case No. 4, and damages. Petitioner also wired the governor on April 13, 1965, reporting his reassumption of office.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner should have been reinstated on March 12, 1965, upon the expiration of the thirty-day preventive suspension period under Section 2189 of the Revised Administrative Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the thirty-day preventive suspension period under Section 2189 of the Revised Administrative Code does not run when the suspended municipal officer, through his own actions, hinders the provincial board from immediately proceeding to dispose of the administrative case on its merits. Petitioner’s filing of a motion to dismiss Adm. Case No. 3 on February 16, 1965, which the board resolved on March 2, 1965, diverted the board’s attention and prevented the immediate proceeding on the merits. This 14-day interval was imputable to petitioner and should not be counted in computing the suspension period. Furthermore, petitioner could not be reinstated on March 12, 1965, due to the institution of Adm. Case No. 4 against him, for which a new suspension order was issued. The delay in hearing Adm. Case No. 4 was also partly due to petitioner’s own motion for its dismissal. The Court also found no merit in petitioner’s claim regarding the identity of the complainant in Adm. Case No. 4, as the governor is the complainant before the provincial board, and supporting affidavits need not be served with the written charges.