G.R. No. L-4983 December 22, 1954
ADRIANO FESTEJO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF NABUA, NICOMEDES PORNILLOS, and ALEJO RAMOS, MUNICIPAL TREASURER OF NABUA, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On April 1, 1950, a sworn administrative complaint was filed against Chief of Police Adriano Festejo of Nabua, Camarines Sur, for “laxity and negligence in the custody of prisoners.” On April 21, 1950, the Mayor suspended Festejo, and the Municipal Council passed a resolution creating an “Integrity Board” composed of three councilors to conduct the investigation. During the hearing, Festejo’s counsel questioned the Board’s jurisdiction and, upon being overruled, Festejo refused to submit to the investigation. The Board proceeded to hear the complainant’s evidence and, on September 27, 1950, rendered a decision finding Festejo guilty. It does not appear that the Municipal Council as a whole acted on the case. On October 9, 1950, the Mayor notified Festejo that, conformably to the Integrity Board’s decision, he was completely separated from service. Festejo’s counsel filed a notice of appeal and motion with the Commissioner of Civil Service, received on October 25, 1950, with copies sent by ordinary mail to the Municipal Council and District Auditor. After unsuccessfully seeking reinstatement through higher executive authorities, Festejo filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur to compel his reinstatement and payment of salary. The lower court dismissed the petition, ruling that the appeal from the administrative decision was filed out of time, as service by ordinary mail was completed only on October 26, 1950, which was more than 15 days after Festejo received the notice of decision on October 10, 1950.

ISSUE

Whether the investigation and decision by the “Integrity Board” (a committee of the Municipal Council) instead of by the Municipal Council itself, as required by Republic Act No. 557 , rendered the administrative proceedings null and void, thereby entitling Festejo to reinstatement.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court and ordered the issuance of a writ of mandamus for Festejo’s reinstatement. The Court held that Republic Act No. 557 , which was already in effect at the time of the investigation, expressly required that charges against a member of the municipal police be investigated by the municipal council in a public hearing. The Act did not authorize the council to delegate the investigation to a committee. The investigation and decision by the “Integrity Board” were therefore illegal and null and void. Since there was no final decision, Festejo was entitled to reinstatement sixty days after his suspension, as mandatorily provided under Section 3 of Republic Act No. 557 . The Court also ruled that the argument regarding the timeliness of the appeal was untenable because the void decision of the Integrity Board was not a valid decision from which an appeal could be taken. Furthermore, Festejo had exhausted administrative remedies by petitioning the President and the Secretary of the Interior, to no avail.