G.R. No. L-28747; April 28, 1969
PAZ M. GARCIA, petitioner, vs. HON. CLAUDIO TEEHANKEE, Secretary of Justice and MANUEL LINTAG, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Paz M. Garcia filed an original petition for prohibition with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against the Secretary of Justice and a Special Investigator. The case stemmed from an administrative charge for gross misconduct filed against Garcia by Judge Francisco de la Rosa of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay Branch, on January 27, 1968. The charge related to an incident between Garcia and the clerk of court on court premises on November 21, 1967. On that same date, Judge De la Rosa recommended Garcia’s preventive suspension to the Secretary of Justice, who authorized it on November 27, 1967. Respondent Manuel Lintag was designated to investigate the charge on January 11, 1968. On February 12, 1968, Garcia submitted a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it was not verified by the head of her office (allegedly Executive Judge Pedro Bautista, not Judge De la Rosa), violating Civil Service Rules, and that the investigator therefore lacked jurisdiction. The investigator denied the motion on February 14, 1968, warning Garcia that failure to appear at hearings would be considered a waiver of her defense. At the time of the motion, a witness against Garcia had already testified.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative complaint against petitioner Paz M. Garcia was properly filed by Judge Francisco de la Rosa, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the investigator.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the writ prayed for. It ruled that Judge Francisco de la Rosa, as the judge presiding the branch of the Court of First Instance of Rizal to which Garcia was officially assigned and working, was legally the “head of the office” for purposes of filing administrative charges against subordinate employees under Section 24, Rule 18 of the Civil Service Rules. Consequently, the complaint was properly filed by him and did not need to be sworn to, following precedents such as Diaz vs. Arca and Maloga vs. Gella. The Court rejected Garcia’s claim that Executive Judge Bautista or the Clerk of Court was her immediate chief, stating that such a view would render a presiding judge a mere figurehead without effective control or disciplinary authority over court personnel, which would be intolerable. The investigation conducted by the Department of Justice was in accordance with law and rules, and it was not final as the record would be forwarded to the Commissioner of Civil Service for appropriate action.