Villaluz v Zaldivar

RUBEN A. VILLALUZ v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR, ET AL. GR No. L-22754 15 SCRA 71 31 DECEMBER 195 B!"#$%#! A&'()o, *.+ ACTS+

In a letter dated January 28, 1960, Congressman Joaquin R. Roces as Chairman of the Committee on ood o!ernment of the "ouse of Re#resentati!es informed the $resident of the $hili##ines of the findings made %y his Committee regarding the alleged gross mismanagement and inefficiency committed %y Ru%en &illalu' &illalu' (#etitioner) in *otor &ehicles &ehicles +ffice. he allegations -ere as follo-s 1) mal#ractice in office resulting in huge losses to the go!ernment/ 2) failure to correct inadequate controls or intentional toleration of the same, facili facilitat tating ing there% there%y y the commi commissi ssion on of graft graft and corru# corru#ti tion/ on/ and ) neglig negligenc encee to remedy remedy unsati unsatisfa sfacto ctory ry accounting. Cong. Roces recommended the re#lacement of &illalu', his assistant chief urelio de eon, and a com#lete re!am# of the offices coming under the *otor &ehicles &ehicles +ffice. hrough the 3ecretary of $u%lic 4or5s and Communications, &illalu' -as furnished a co#y of the  #etition requiring him to e#lain -ithin 72 hours -hy no administrati!e action should %e ta5en against him. &illalu' denied all the charges. +n e%ruary 1, 1960, :ecuti!e 3ecretary ;atalio $. Castillo sus#ended &illalu' ha!ing created an in!estigating committee -ith the only #ur#ose of in!estigating the charges against  #etitioner and his assistant. fter fter the in!estigation, the $resident issued dministrati!e dministrati!e +rder ;o. 2 decreeing the remo!al from office of the #etitioner. #olonio #olonio $onio -as a##ointed in his stead. &illalu' filed a motion for reconsideration ande#artment of $u%lic 4or5s. ELD+

here is no error of #rocedure committed %y res#ondents insofar as the in!estigation and disci#linary action ta5en against #etitioner. ?eing a #residential a##ointee, the dministrator of the *otor &ehicles +ffice  %elongs to the non@com#etiti!e or unclassified ser!ice of the go!ernment. s such, he can only %e in!estigated and remo!ed from office after due hearing %y the $resident of the $hili##ines under the #rinci#le that Athe  #o-er to remo!e is inherent in the #o-er to a##ointB as can %e im#lied from 3ection  of Re#u%lic ct ;o. 2260 2260 (n (n act act to amen amend d and and re!i re!ise se the the la-s la-s rela relati ti!e !e to $hil $hili# i##i #ine ne Ci!i Ci!ill 3er! 3er!ic ice) e).. Cons Consequ equen entl tly y, the the Commissioner of Ci!il 3er!ice is -ithout =urisdiction to hear and decide the administrati!e charges filed against the dministrator. he authority of Commissioner to #ass u#on questions of sus#ension, se#aration or remo!al can only %e eercised -ith referenced to #ermanent officials and em#loyees in the classified ser!ice. $etition is denied.