Sarandi v. Espino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Dionisio A. Sarandi, the elected Municipal Mayor of Maddela, Nueva Vizcaya, was suspended from office by the Provincial Governor. The suspension stemmed from an administrative complaint alleging oppression, abuse of authority, gross misconduct, and maladministration. Specific charges included physically assaulting a constituent, making threats, and consuming intoxicating liquors while in office, allegedly in violation of a municipal ordinance and with disregard for his official dignity. Procedural History: Following his suspension on July 6, 1962, the Provincial Board gave due course to the administrative complaint. Petitioner's initial request for postponement to secure counsel was granted. However, subsequent attempts to have the case heard were unsuccessful. When petitioner sought to resume his duties after the statutory 30-day preventive suspension period expired, his salary payment was withheld. Appeals to the President for reinstatement were denied. A subsequent hearing was scheduled and conducted despite petitioner's counsel being unable to attend due to communication and travel difficulties, leading to a decision finding petitioner guilty and suspending him until the end of his term. The Petition: Petitioner initiated an original action for Prohibition, Mandamus, and Quo Warranto with preliminary injunction. He sought immediate reinstatement, a declaration that his preventive suspension beyond 30 days was illegal, and an order compelling his reinstatement. He also sought to have the acting mayor declared as unlawfully holding office and to recover his withheld salary and emoluments. The petition argued that the Provincial Board lacked a quorum for the hearing and decision, that the denial of his request for postponement violated due process, and that his suspension beyond the statutory 30 days, without delay attributable to him, entitled him to reinstatement and back pay.
Issue(s)
Whether the preventive suspension of the petitioner beyond thirty (30) days was legal. Whether the administrative investigation and decision rendered by the Provincial Board were valid, considering the alleged lack of quorum and denial of due process. Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover the salary and emoluments from September 28, 1962, to December 31, 1963.
Ruling
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring him entitled to recover the salary and other emoluments from September 28, 1962, to December 31, 1963, and directing the respondents to pay the said amounts. The Court found the prolonged preventive suspension and the subsequent administrative decision to be illegal and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality of the preventive suspension beyond thirty (30) days: The Court held that Section 2189 of the Revised Administrative Code explicitly states that the preventive suspension of a municipal officer shall not exceed thirty days. Upon the expiration of this period, the suspended officer must be reinstated, unless the delay in the decision is attributable to the accused or conviction has occurred and the case is pending appeal. In this case, the petitioner's suspension began on July 9, 1962. While the initial hearing was postponed at his request, he later moved for the case to be set for hearing. The thirty-day period, excluding the delay caused by his request, expired on September 27, 1962. Since the Provincial Board had not decided or heard the case by then, the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement on September 28, 1962. The Court found no valid grounds to extend the suspension beyond the statutory limit. On the validity of the administrative investigation and decision: The Court declared the hearing and decision rendered by the Provincial Board on March 11-12, 1963, as null and void. This was based on two grounds: lack of quorum and denial of due process. Firstly, the Board, at the time of the hearing and decision, consisted only of the Acting Provincial Governor and the Provincial Treasurer designated as an acting member. Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 2264, a quorum requires the presence of three members. Therefore, the Board lacked the legal authority to conduct the investigation or render a decision. Secondly, the petitioner was notified of the hearing only on March 4, 1963, for a hearing scheduled on March 11-12, 1963. Given the travel difficulties from Maddela to Bayombong and the lack of communication systems, petitioner could not reasonably inform his Manila-based counsel. His request for postponement, made upon arrival, was denied, effectively depriving him of his day in court and violating his right to due process. On the entitlement to salary and emoluments: As a consequence of the illegality of the prolonged suspension and the void administrative decision, the petitioner was deemed entitled to the salary, emoluments, and privileges attached to his office from September 28, 1962, up to the expiration of his term on December 31, 1963. The Court ordered the respondents to pay these amounts, as the petitioner was illegally prevented from discharging his duties and receiving his rightful compensation.
Main Doctrine
A preventive suspension of a municipal officer exceeding thirty (30) days is illegal and void unless the delay in the decision of the case is due to the fault, neglect, or request of the accused, or in case of conviction until the Office of the President shall otherwise direct or the case shall finally be decided by the Office of the President. Furthermore, an administrative investigation and decision rendered by a provincial board lacking a quorum is null and void for want of authority.