Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-11959 October 31, 1959
ARTURO B. PASCUAL, petitioner-appellant,
vs.
HON. PROVINCIAL BOAR O! NUEVA ECI"A, respondent-appellee.
Amado G. Salazar, Felicisimo S. Ocampo, Arturo S. Tomas, Feliciano
Bautista and Severo Ongsiapco for appellant.
Mariano D. Capuoc for appellee.
GUTIERRE# AVI, J.$
We are asked in this appeal to revoke an order of the Court of irst
!nstance of Nueva Eci"a den#in$ appellant%s petition for a &rit of prohibition
&ith preli'inar# in"unction.
Petitioner-appellant Arturo B. Pascual had been elected 'a#or of (an
)ose, Nueva Eci"a, in Nove'ber *+,* and reelected in *+,,. !n -ctober .,
*+,., the Actin$ Provincial /overnor of that province filed &ith the
Provincial Board three ad'inistrative char$es a$ainst the said appellant.
Char$e !!! &as for 0Malad'inistrative, Abuse of Authorit#, and 1surpation
of )udicial unctions,0 co''itted as follo&s2
(pecification ! 3 4hat on or about the *5th and 67th da# of
8ece'ber, *+,9, in the 'unicipalit# of (an )ose, Nueva Eci"a, the
above-na'ed respondent, bein$ 'unicipal 'a#or of (an )ose,
Nueva Eci"a, and &hile the "ustice of the peace of the said
'unicipalit# &as present therein, did there and then &illfull#,
feloniousl#, cri'inall#, &ithout le$al authorit#, and &ith $rave abuse
of authorit#, assu'ed and usurped the "udicial po&ers of the said
"ustice of the peace b# acceptin$ the cri'inal co'plaint filed in
Cri'inal Case No. :,,., of the said court, conductin$ the preli'inar#
investi$ation thereof, fi;in$ the bail bond of P.,777.77, and issuin$
the correspondin$ &arrant of arrest< and after the accused in the said
cri'inal case had been arrested, &hile the "ustice of the peace &as in
his office in (an )ose, Nueva Eci"a, the herein respondent, in
defiance of the e;press refusal b# the "ustice of the peace to reduce
the bail bond of the accused in Cri'inal Case No. *,,., acted on the
'otion to reduce bail and did reduce the bail bond to P:,777.77.
After the presentation of evidence re$ardin$ the first t&o char$es,
petitioner-appellant filed &ith the respondent-appellee, the Provincial
Board, a 'otion to dis'iss the third char$e above referred to, on the 'ain
$round that the &ron$ful acts therein alle$ed had been co''itted durin$
his previous ter' of office and could not constitute a $round for disciplinin$
hi' durin$ his second ter'. 1pon opposition filed b# a special counsel for
the respondent-appellee, the 'otion to dis'iss &as denied b# resolution of
the Board.
After the denial of the 'otion for reconsideration of that resolution, the
appellant filed &ith this Court a petition for a &rit of prohibition &ith
preli'inar# in"unction =/. R. No. >-**?:7@, to en"oin the Provincial Board of
Nueva Eci"a fro' takin$ co$niAance of the third char$e, but the petition &as
denied b# 'inute resolution of 8ece'ber 6*, *+,. 0&ithout pre"udice to
action, if an#, in the Court of irst !nstance.0 Accordin$l#, the petitioner-
appellant filed &ith the Court of irst !nstance of Nueva Eci"a a petition for
prohibition &ith preli'inar# in"unction seekin$ to inhibit the said Provincial
Board fro' proceedin$ &ith the hearin$ of Char$e No. !!!, for lack of
"urisdiction.
!nstead of filin$ an ans&er, the respondent-appellee 'oved for the
dis'issal of the case on the $round that it states no cause of action
because the petitioner-appellant had not co'plied &ith the cardinal
principle of e;haustion of ad'inistrative re'edies before he could appeal
to the courts, and because the Provincial Board had "urisdiction over
Char$e No. !!!. After responsive pleadin$s had been filed b# both parties,
the court belo& issued an order dis'issin$ the petition 0for bein$
pre'ature,0 for the reason that the petitioner had not first appealed to the
E;ecutive (ecretar#. ro' that order, the case &as brou$ht before us on
appeal. 1pon ur$ent petition, a &rit of preli'inar# in"unction &as issued
restrainin$ the respondent-appellee fro' investi$atin$ petitioner-appellant
on the char$e above-'entioned.
!n his brief, petitioner-appellant clai's that the court belo& erred2 =*@ in not
holdin$ that the alle$ed usurpation of "udicial functions in 8ece'ber *+,9
is not a le$al $round for disciplinin$ the appellant durin$ his second ter' of
office after a reelection, and in not holdin$ that the respondent patentl# has
no authorit# or "urisdiction to take co$niAance of Char$e No. :< =6@ in
holdin$ that the petition for prohibition is pre'ature and that the appellant
'ust first e;haust all ad'inistrative re'edies available to hi' under the
Revised Ad'inistrative Code< and =:@ in dis'issin$ the petition for
prohibition.
4he first Buestion posed is &hether or not it &as le$all# proper for
petitioner-appellant to have co'e to court &ithout first brin$in$ his case to
the E;ecutive (ecretar# for revie&. 4rue it is that, in this "urisdiction, the
settled rule is that &here the la& has delineated the procedure b# &hich
ad'inistrative appeal or re'ed# could be effected, the sa'e should be
follo&ed before recourse to "udicial action can be initiated =An$ 4uan
Cai vs. !'port Control Co''ission, +* Phil., *9:< Coloso vs. Board, +6
Phil., +:5< Mi$uel vs. Re#es, +: Phil., ,96, and several other cases@, but
&e believe that this rule is not &ithout e;ceptions, as in a case like the
present, &here the onl# Buestion to be settled in the prohibition
proceedin$s is a purel# le$al one 3 &hether or not a 'unicipal 'a#or 'a#
be sub"ected to an ad'inistrative investi$ation of a char$e based on
'isconduct alle$edl# co''itted b# hi' durin$ his prior ter'.
4he rule is inapplicable &here ad'inistrative re'ed# is provided.
>ike&ise, the rule &ill be rela;ed &here there is $rave doubt as to
availabilit# of the ad'inistrative re'ed#< !"ere t"e #uestion in
dispute is purel a legal one, and not"ing of an administrative nature
is to $e or can $e done< &here althou$h there are steps to be taken,
the# are, under the ad'itted facts, 'erel# 'atters of fro', and the
ad'inistrative process, as a process of "ud$'ent, is reall# over< or
&here the ad'inistrative re'ed# is not e;clusive but 'erel#
cu'ulative or concurrent to a "udicial re'ed#. A liti$ant need not
proceed &ith optional ad'inistrative process before seekin$ "uducial
relief. =?: C. ). (. p. :,9@ =E'phasis supplied@ .
-n the above authorit#, &e are inclined to a$ree &ith the petitioner-
appellant that his brin$in$ the case to court is not a violation of, but 'erel#
an e;ception to, the cardinal rule above referred to.
!n a case =Mondano vs. (ilvosa
%
,* -ff /aA., D.E, p. 6559@, this court
$ranted a &rit of prohibition a$ainst the provincial board of CapiA,
not&ithstandin$ the fact that the petitioner therein did into appeal to the
E;ecutive (ecretar#, the onl# Buestion therein involved bein$ &hether or
not the char$ed filed a$ainst the 'unicipal 'a#or of Calibo, CapiA,
constituted an# one of the $rounds for suspension or re'oval provided for
in sec. 6*55 of the Revised Ad'inistrative Code.
We no& co'e to the 'ain issue of the controvers# 3 the le$alit# of
disciplinin$ an elective 'unicipal official for a &ron$ful act co''itted b#
hi' durin$ his i''ediatel# precedin$ ter' of office.
!n the absence of an# precedent in this "urisdiction, &e have resorted to
A'erican authorities. We found that cases on the 'atter are conflictin$ due
in part, probabl#, to differences in statutes and constitutional provisions,
and also, in part, to a diver$ence of vie&s &ith respect to the Buestion of
&hether the subseBuent election or appoint'ent condones the prior
'isconduct. 4he &ei$ht of authorities, ho&ever, see's to incline to the rule
den#in$ the ri$ht to re'ove one fro' office because of 'isconduct durin$ a
prior ter', to &hich &e full# subscribe.
-ffenses co''itted, or acts done, durin$ previous ter' are $enerall#
held not to furnish cause for re'oval and this is especiall# true &here
the constitution provides that the penalt# in proceedin$s for re'oval
shall not e;tend be#ond the re'oval fro' office, and disBualification
fro' holdin$ office for the ter' for &hich the officer &as elected or
appointed. =.? C.).(. p. 695, citin$ Rice vs. (tate, *.* (.W. 6d. 97*<
Mont$o'er# vs.No&ell, 97 (.W. 6d. 9*5< People e; rel.
Ba$sha& vs. 4ho'pson, *:7 P. 6d. 6:?< Board of Co'%rs of
Cin$fisher Count# vs. (hutler, 65* P. 666< (tate vs. Blake, 657 P.
:55< !n re udula, *9? A. .?< (tate vs.Ward, 9: (.W. 6d. 6*?@.
4he underl#in$ theor# is that each ter' is separate fro' other ter's, and
that the reelection to office operates as a condonation of the officer%s
previous 'isconduct to the e;tent of cuttin$ off the ri$ht to re'ove hi'
therefor. =9: A'. )ur. p. 9,, citin$ Att#. /en. vs. Fast#, *59 Ala. *6*, .:
(o. ,,+, ,7 >.R.A. =N(@ ,,:. As held in Conant vs. Bro$an =*55?@ .
N.G.(.R. ::6, cited in *? A.!.R. 65*, .: (o. ,,+, ,7 >RA =N(@ ,,: 3
4he Court should never re'ove a public officer for acts done prior to
his present ter' of office. 4o do other&ise &ould be to deprive the
people of their ri$ht to elect their officers. When the people have
elected a 'an to office, it 'ust be assu'ed that the# did this &ith
kno&led$e of his life and character, and that the# disre$arded or
for$ave his faults or 'isconduct, if he had been $uilt# of an#. !t is not
for the court, b# reason of such faults or 'isconduct to practicall#
overrule the &ill of the people.
!n vie& of the fore$oin$, the order appealed fro' is hereb# revoked< the
&rit of prohibition pra#ed for is hereb# $ranted and the preli'inar#
in"unction heretofore issued 'ade per'anent. Without special
pronounce'ent as to costs.
%aras, C.&., Bengzon, %adilla, Montemaor, Bautista Angelo, 'a$rador,
(ees, &.B.'., )ndencia and Barrera, &&.,concur.