G.R. No. L-24649 September 18, 1965.
BIENVENIDO A. CASTILLO, petitioner, vs. HON. JOSE M. VILLARAMA, personally and as Governor of the Province of Bulacan, and ARSENIO SULIT, as Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Pulilan, Province of Bulacan, respondents.

FACTS

Upon an administrative complaint for oppression and mal-administration filed by Provincial Governor Jose M. Villarama, Municipal Mayor Bienvenido A. Castillo was suspended and investigated by the Provincial Board. The Board acquitted Castillo and ordered his reinstatement. Governor Villarama refused to recognize the Board’s decision and order of reinstatement, and instructed Vice-Mayor Arsenio Sulit not to relinquish the office of Mayor, which Sulit had assumed upon Castillo’s suspension. Castillo filed a petition for prohibition to prevent enforcement of the Governor’s instruction and to effect his reinstatement. A preliminary injunction was issued.
The charge was filed on May 19, 1965. In the Board’s next regular meeting on May 26, with the Governor absent and the Vice-Governor presiding, the case was set for hearing on June 2. The Governor questioned the validity of this action. On June 2, both the Governor and Vice-Governor were absent, but the three Board members present elected a presiding officer and reset the investigation for June 9. On June 9, the petitioner appeared, but the session hall was padlocked. The Governor and Vice-Governor did not attend. The three Board members proceeded with the hearing in another location, received petitioner’s evidence, and on the same day rendered a decision acquitting Castillo and ordering his immediate reinstatement. The Governor ignored this decision.
A supplemental petition alleged that regardless of the proceedings, Castillo’s preventive suspension had expired due to the lapse of the 30-day statutory limit, but the Vice-Mayor still refused to vacate the office until the Court’s preliminary injunction was issued.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent Provincial Governor may validly refuse to recognize the decision of the Provincial Board, which was rendered unanimously by its three members after an investigation conducted at a regular meeting where the Governor was not present.

RULING

No. The writ of prohibition is granted and the preliminary injunction is made permanent.
The Court held that the meetings of the Provincial Board on June 2 and 9, 1965, were valid. Section 5 of the Local Autonomy Act ( Republic Act No. 2264 ) provides that the presence of three members constitutes a quorum for the transaction of business. It further provides that in the absence of the Governor, the vote of a majority of the members present shall constitute a binding act of the board. The designation of the Governor as presiding officer applies to meetings where he is present, but his presence is not indispensable for the valid transaction of business. The power to investigate and decide an administrative case against a municipal official is lodged in the Provincial Board as a body, and the performance of this duty cannot be frustrated by the absence of the Provincial Governor.
The Court cited a similar case, Javellana, et al. vs. Tayo, which upheld the validity of official acts of a municipal council done at a regular session attended by a quorum, even in the absence of the Mayor and Vice-Mayor.
Furthermore, the Court noted that in any event, the 30-day limit for preventive suspension had already expired, making petitioner’s reinstatement in order.