Garcia vs.

Pajaro and the City of Dagupan

(GR No. 141149 | July 5, 2002)

Facts

Petitioner Sebastian Garcia had been an employee at the City Treasurer’s Office,
Dagupan City, since June 15, 1974, as Revenue Collector. He was ordered suspended by City
Treasurer Juanito Pajaro from June 1, 1990 to March 15, 1992, who also directed the
withholding of his salary because of the Formal Charge filed against him. Garcia resumed
work on March 16, 1992 as Local Treasury Officer III. From June 1, 1990 up to March 15,
1992, he had been reporting for work because he did not honor the suspension order. He did
not believe in the order; he did not submit himself for investigation. He was not paid his salary
because of the suspension order.

Respondent Pajaro was regularly appointed as City Treasurer of Dagupan City on

January 2, 1986, up to the present. According to Pajaro, petitioner had been rating
Unsatisfactory in his performance for several semesters, which was the reason a [Formal]
Charge was filed against petitioner. Garcia did not answer and refused to honor the subpoena
to submit himself for investigation. So respondent proceeded with ex-parte investigation and
gathered and submitted testimonies to support the allegations in the Formal Charge, then
submitted the result of their findings to the Department of Finance for decision. The matter
of preventive suspension of Garcia was submitted to the Regional Director, Bureau of Local
Government Finance, which was favorably approved by the Regional Director.

Petitioner claims that the officer empowered to institute disciplinary proceedings

against him is the city mayor of Dagupan — not the city treasurer. He further asserts that
under Section 78 of the Local Government Code of 1983, the city treasurer does not have the
power to discipline him.

Issue

Whether or not the city treasurer of Dagupan can discipline petitioner.

Ruling

YES. The Administrative Code of 1987 — specifically Book V on the civil service — is
the primary law governing appointive officials and employees in the government. The power
to discipline is specifically granted by Section 47 of the Administrative Code of 1987 to heads
of departments, agencies and instrumentalities, provinces and cities. On the other hand, the
power to commence administrative proceedings against a subordinate officer or employee is
granted by Section 34 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the said Administrative
Code to the secretary of a department, the head of office of equivalent rank, the head of a
local government unit, the chief of an agency, the regional director or a person with a sworn
written complaint.

Further, the city treasurer may institute, motu proprio, disciplinary proceedings
against a subordinate officer or employee. Local Administrative Regulations (LAR) No. 2-85,
which was issued by the Ministry of Finance on March 27, 1985, authorized the minister (now
secretary) of finance, the regional director, and head of a local treasury or an assessment
office to start administrative disciplinary action against officers or employees subordinate to
them.

In the case at bar, the city treasurer is the proper disciplining authority referred to in
Section 47 of the Administrative Code of 1987. Respondent Pajaro, as the city treasurer, was
the head of the Office of the Treasurer; while petitioner, a senior revenue collector, was an
officer under him. Thus, the city treasurer is the proper disciplining authority who could
investigate petitioner and issue a preventive suspension order against him.

Respondent Pajaro was authorized to issue the assailed Preventive Suspension Order
against petitioner, because the latter was charged with gross neglect of duty, refusal to
perform official duties and functions, and insubordination — grounds that allowed the issuance
of such Order, as provided by Section 51 of the 1987 Administrative Code. Clearly, the city
treasurer acted within the scope of his power when he commenced the investigation and
issued the assailed Order.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED.