CASES IN PUBLIC CORPORATION

CASE: JOSON v EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 290 SCRA 279 (1998)

DOCTRINE: DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED AGENCY

FACTS

Private respondent who was the Vice-Governor of the province of Nueva Ecija alleged that in the
morning of September 12, 1996, they were at the session hall of the provincial capitol for a
scheduled session of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan when petitioner Hon. Eduardo Nonato Joson
who was the Provincial Governor of Nueva , belligerently barged into the Hall; petitioner angrily
kicked the door and chairs in the Hall and uttered threatening words at them; close behind
petitioner were several men with long and short firearms who encircled the area. The complaint
was filed before the Office the President and was endorsed to the to DILG. The petitioner failed
to answer after three (3) extensions and was declared in default and was ordered 60-day
suspension. Petitioner later filed a Motion to Conduct Formal Investigation, however, the DILG
denied the motion declaring that the submission of position papers substantially complies with
the requirements of procedural due process in administrative proceedings. Later, the Executive
Secretary adopted the findings and recommendation of the DILG Secretary. The Executive
Secretary imposed on the petitioner the penalty of suspension from office for six (6) months
without pay.

ISSUES

Whether or not (a) preventive suspension is proper, (b) the DILG Secretary has jurisdiction and
authority over the case, and (c) the procedural due process is violated.

RULING

(a) Yes, preventive suspension is proper. Preventive suspension may be imposed by the
Disciplining Authority at any time after the issues are joined, xx when the evidence of
guilt is strong and, given the gravity of the offense, there is a great probability that the
continuance in office of the respondent could influence the witnesses or pose a threat to
the safety and integrity of the records and other evidence.
(b) Yes, the DILG Secretary has jurisdiction and authority over the case. The jurisdiction
over administrative disciplinary action against elective local officials is lodged in two
authorities: the Disciplining Authority and the Investigation Authority. According to Sec.
____________________________

By: Louise Marie L. Pomida

 CASES IN PUBLIC CORPORATION

2 and 3 of Administrative Order No. 23: “Sec. 2. All administrative complaints, duly
verified, against elective local officials mentioned in the preceding Section shall be acted
upon by the President. The President, who may act through the Executive Secretary, shall
hereinafter be referred to as the Disciplining Authority” and “Sec. 3. The Secretary of the
Interior and Local Government is hereby designated as the Investigating Authority. He
may constitute an Investigating Committee in the Department of the Interior and Local
Government for the purpose.” The power of the DILG to investigate administrative
complaints is based on the alter-ego principle or doctrine of qualified agency. Under this
doctrine, all executive and administrative organizations are adjuncts of the Executive
Department, the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of
the Chief Executive, and, except in cases where the Chief Executive is required by the
Constitution or law to act in person or the exigencies of the situation demand that he act
personally, the multifarious executive and administrative functions of the Chief
Executive are performed by and through the executive departments, and the acts of the
Secretaries of such departments, performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive presumptively the
acts of the Chief Executive.
(c) Yes, the procedural due process was violated. The rejection of petitioner’s right to a
formal investigation denied him procedural due process. Section 5 of A.O. No. 23
provides that at the preliminary conference, the Investigating Authority shall summon
the parties to consider whether they desire a formal investigation. This provision does
not give the Investigating Authority the discretion to determine whether a formal
investigation would be conducted. As respondent, he is accorded several rights under
the law. Section 65, A.O. 23 states that, the respondent shall be accorded full
opportunity to appear and defend himself in person or by counsel, to confront and
cross-examine the witness against him, and to require the attendance of witnesses and
the production of documentary evidence in his favor through compulsory process of
the subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.”

____________________________

By: Louise Marie L. Pomida