GR L 29755; (January, 1969) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29755; January 31, 1969
Domingo N. Sarcos, as Mayor of Barobo, Surigao del Sur, petitioner, vs. Hon. Recaredo Castillo, as Provincial Governor of Surigao del Sur, and The Hon. Provincial Board of Surigao del Sur, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Domingo N. Sarcos was the duly elected Mayor of Barobo, Surigao del Sur. Respondent Recaredo Castillo, the Provincial Governor, filed an administrative complaint against petitioner for misconduct and dishonesty in office, alleging that petitioner connived with private individuals to cut and sell timber from the communal forest reserve. Based on this complaint, respondent Governor issued an Administrative Order placing petitioner under preventive suspension and designating the Vice-Mayor as Acting Mayor. Petitioner challenged the Governor’s authority to order such preventive suspension under the Decentralization Act of 1967 ( Republic Act No. 5185 ).
ISSUE
Whether the provincial governor is vested with the power to order the preventive suspension of a municipal mayor under the Decentralization Act of 1967.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court held that the provincial governor no longer possesses the power of preventive suspension over a municipal mayor under the Decentralization Act of 1967. The Court ruled that:
1. Section 5 of the Decentralization Act exclusively governs the suspension and removal of elective local officials. A reading of the pertinent paragraph shows that the power to order preventive suspension is granted to the provincial board under specified conditions, not to the provincial governor. The deliberate change in statutory language from the former law indicates a legislative intent to withhold such authority from the governor.
2. Public officials possess powers, not rights, and any action taken must be based on a grant of authority, whether express or implied. No such authority to order preventive suspension is vested in the provincial governor by the Decentralization Act.
3. The Court must effectuate the manifest purpose of the law. The statutory scheme is complete and locates the power of preventive suspension in the provincial board. Any other interpretation would defeat the purpose of the legislator.
Therefore, the order of preventive suspension issued by respondent Governor was invalid for lack of authority.