G.R. No. L-77918; July 27, 1987
Francisco Lecaroz, petitioner, vs. Hon. Jaime N. Ferrer, in his capacity as Secretary of Local Government, and Meynardo Vertucio, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Francisco Lecaroz was the duly elected Municipal Mayor of Sta. Cruz, Marinduque, in the 1980 elections. He continued to discharge his functions after the 1986 EDSA Revolution. On March 26, 1987, respondent Secretary of Local Government Jaime N. Ferrer removed Lecaroz from office and designated respondent Meynardo Vertucio as the officer-in-charge mayor. Lecaroz filed this petition, alleging his removal was politically motivated for his failure to campaign for an administration candidate and was oppressive, as he was an elected official entitled to security of tenure.
Respondents countered that Lecaroz was validly dismissed for cause. They cited pending administrative complaints against him for negligence, abuse of authority, misconduct, and misappropriation of a municipal donation. Crucially, they also invoked his conviction by the Sandiganbayan for the crime of Grave Coercion, which carried the accessory penalty of suspension from public office. They argued his term had expired and his continuance was merely in an acting capacity, allowing his removal at any time.

ISSUE

Whether the Secretary of Local Government could summarily remove petitioner Francisco Lecaroz from his position as municipal mayor by the mere designation of a successor.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, granting the petition. The legal logic proceeds from the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. Under Article III, Section 2 of the 1986 Provisional Constitution, elective officials under the 1973 Constitution were to continue in office until otherwise provided, but only if a successor was designated within one year from February 25, 1986. Since the one-year period had already lapsed by March 26, 1987, Lecaroz could not be removed by the mere designation of Vertucio.
Consequently, Lecaroz, as a continuing elective official, could only be removed for the specific grounds enumerated in Section 60 of the Local Government Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 337), such as dishonesty, misconduct, or commission of an offense involving moral turpitude, and only after compliance with the requisite administrative procedures. While serious administrative charges and a criminal conviction were pending against him, the Court noted that no formal decision had been rendered by the Department of Local Government following an investigation as mandated by Section 65 of the same Code. His summary dismissal via a mere letter of replacement, without a prior written decision on the administrative cases, violated due process and the statutory removal process. Therefore, the removal was invalid.