GR L 7708; (May, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7708 May 30, 1955
JOSE MONDANO, petitioner, vs. FERNANDO SILVOSA, Provincial Governor of Surigao, JOSE ARREZA and OLIMPIO EPIS, Members of the Provincial Board, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioner, Jose Mondano, is the duly elected and qualified mayor of Mainit, Surigao. On February 27, 1954, a sworn complaint was filed with the Presidential Complaints and Action Committee accusing him of rape and concubinage. The Assistant Executive Secretary indorsed the complaint to the respondent Provincial Governor for immediate investigation, appropriate action, and report. On April 10, 1954, the petitioner appeared before the provincial governor, was served a copy of the complaint, and the governor issued Administrative Order No. 8 suspending him from office. The Provincial Board then proceeded to hear the charges over the petitioner’s objection. The petitioner filed for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction to enjoin the respondents from further proceeding and to declare the suspension order illegal.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent provincial governor and provincial board have the legal authority to investigate the charges against the petitioner and to order his suspension.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition. It held that the investigation and suspension were unauthorized and illegal. The Court distinguished between the President’s constitutional power of “control” over executive departments and “general supervision” over local governments. The Department Head’s authority under Section 79(c) of the Revised Administrative Code to investigate acts of persons in bureaus or offices under his jurisdiction does not extend to local government officials. Provincial supervision over municipal officials is expressly lodged by law in the provincial governor under specific provisions (Sections 2188-2190 of the Revised Administrative Code). The charges of rape and concubinage do not constitute “neglect of duty, oppression, corruption, or other form of maladministration of office” under Section 2188. While they may involve moral turpitude, action by the provincial governor and board under those sections requires a prior conviction by final judgment. Furthermore, the crimes alleged require sworn complaints by specific offended parties for judicial prosecution. Therefore, the Provincial Board’s investigation was unauthorized, and the suspension order was unlawful.