G.R. No. L-8790-8797; August 14, 1956
CRISPIN CARMONA, ET AL., petitioners-appellees, vs. FELIX P. AMANTE, in his capacity as Ad Interim Mayor of the City of Bacolod, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

In 1951, petitioners-appellees, all civil service eligibles and members of the Bacolod City police force, faced administrative complaints filed by the chief of police for various offenses (e.g., tolerating prohibited games, maltreatment, dereliction of duty). The complaints, sworn to by the chief of police, were presented to the city mayor, who endorsed them to the city council and suspended the petitioners. The city council referred the complaints to its committee on police. The committee furnished each petitioner with a copy of the charges, subpoenaed them, and, after they failed to appear, received evidence from the chief of police. The committee found the petitioners guilty and recommended their immediate separation from service. The city council approved this resolution on October 29, 1951. The petitioners then sued the mayor, alleging illegal removal and seeking reinstatement. The trial court ordered reinstatement, holding the suspension and removal violated Republic Act No. 557 because (1) the complaints were not instituted by the mayor personally, (2) the investigation was conducted by a committee, not the council itself, and (3) the petitioners were not given an opportunity to present their defense. The mayor appealed directly to the Supreme Court, as the facts were undisputed.

ISSUE

Whether the administrative investigation and subsequent removal of the petitioners were valid under Republic Act No. 557 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering reinstatement. The Court held: (1) The requirement that charges be “preferred by the city mayor” does not necessitate the mayor’s personal signing or filing of the complaints. The act of the chief of police (the mayor’s immediate representative) in filing the complaints and the mayor’s subsequent endorsement to the council constituted the mayor preferring the charges; the mayor’s signature was a non-essential formality. (2) However, the investigation was invalid because Republic Act No. 557 , as amended, eliminated the provision authorizing investigation by a committee of the council. Following the doctrine established in Festejo vs. Municipal Mayor of Nabua and Covacha vs. Amante, the investigation must be conducted by the city council itself, not by a committee. Therefore, the investigation proceedings conducted by the committee were null and void. Given this conclusion, the Court deemed it unnecessary to address the third finding regarding the petitioners’ opportunity to present evidence.