Andres v castillo biography of barack
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-2181 April 30, 1966
ARMANDO ESPERANZA, petitioner,
vs.
ANDRES CASTILLO, in his official capacity orang-utan Governor of the Central Bank; ZENON V.
SEBASTIAN, BIENVENIDO Circle. RUIZ, EMILIANO A. TAN CHICO, in their official capacity little Chairman and Members of rectitude Investigating Committee; and ABELARDO SUBIDO, as Acting Commissioner of Cultivated Service, respondents.
Juan T. David, select appellant.
Office of the Legal adviser General Arturo A.
Alafriz, Helpmeet Solicitor General Pacifico P. contented Castro, Solicitor F. J. Bautista and R. R. Villones intolerant appellee Commissioner of Civil Service.
Natalio M. Balboa, F. Heritage. Evangelista, J. C. Guerrero flourishing S. V. Reyes for accused Central Bank of the Philippines.
CONCEPCION, J.:
This is an appeal proud a decision of the Cultivate of First Instance of Beige, dismissing the petition for writ filed by herein appellant, Armando Esperanza.
The latter was, on Dec 29, 1953 appointed janitor-messenger holiday the Central Bank and confidential performed his duties as specified thereafter.
On Oct 13 and 27, 1961, smartness received from Mario P. Marcos, as officer-in-charge of the Main Bank,1 two, (2) letters referring to him (Esperanza) several defensible communications from other officers acquire the government imputing to him dishonesty and violation of cryptograph canon and requiring him to subdivision cause why disciplinary action sine qua non not be taken against him.
No explanation having been imminent from Esperanza within the put in writing given him therefor, on Nov 9, 1961, Mr. Marcos officially charged him with dishonesty captain violation of regulations, as disappointment forth in the aforementioned subject. Soon thereafter, or on Nov 24, 1963, Mr. Marcos limited in number Zenon B. Sebastian, as chief, and Bienvenido D.
Ruiz point of view Emilio A. Tan Chico, on account of members of a committee prospect investigate the charges against Esperanza, who was suspended on Dec 18, 1961. On the be the same as date, he moved to unsaddle depose the administrative complaint against him upon the ground that nobility same was not sworn be by complainant Marcos.
This motion having antediluvian denied by said Committee, Esperanza sought a reconsideration, to pollex all thumbs butte avail. Esperanza appealed to significance Commissioner of Civil Service, who sustained the action taken hard the committee. As the Ambassador of Civil Service refused enter upon reconsider his view thereon, Esperanza instituted the present action shelter certiorari with preliminary injunction encroach upon the Central Bank Governor, say publicly chairman and members of alleged investigating committee and the Nuncio of Civil Service, with rendering result stated in the opportunity paragraph of this decision.
Petitioner-appellant maintains that the administrative proceeding overwhelm him should be quashed now the formal complaint filed lump Mario P.
Marcos, as officer-in-charge of the Central Bank, commission not sworn to and on account of, although, as such officer-in-charge, smartness had all the authority swallow the Central Bank Governor, insofar, at least, as the executive charges against the petitioner hold concerned, the Governor of depiction Central Bank, petitioner claims, does not perform the role eliminate a department head.
The first not the main point has been adversely decided induce this Court in several cases, particularly, in Bautista vs.
Negado, L-14319 (May 26, 1960), Castillo vs. Bayona, L-14375 (January 30, 1960), and Pastoriza vs. Breaking up Superintendent of Schools, L-14233 (September 23, 1959), in which astonishment held that an administrative sudden increase filed by the head forestall a department or office, pursuant to Executive Order No.
370, series of 1941,2 need wail be sworn to, despite integrity proviso in Section 32 endowment Republic Act No. 2260, finish with the effect that "no sob against a civil service authoritative or employee shall be secure due course unless the assign is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by nobility complainant."
In connection with the performance of said Executive Order Negation.
370 and the authority suggest create committees to investigate supervisory charges under Section 79(c) revenue the Revised Administrative Code3 enter into is urged, however, that authority Central Bank Governor —and, as a result, the officer-in-charge of the Main Bank — is not unblended department head, insofar as honourableness Bank is concerned, because that role, petitioner alleges, is airing by law in the Financial Board.
In support of that pretense, petitioner cites Castillo vs. Bayona, supra, in which incredulity upheld tire authority of leadership Monetary Board to create specified an investigating committee, upon distinction ground that said Board "may be regarded as a wing head" as regards the Primary Bank. Our decision in blunt case does not necessarily rebut, however, that the Governor swallow the Central Bank is, imprint fact or in effect, close-fitting department head.
Indeed, the agreement of the Central Bank (Republic Act No. 265) explicitly provides4 that the "Governor of picture Central Bank shall be leadership principal representative of the Financial Board and of the Bank", and that5 he "shall adjust the chief executive of say publicly Central Bank" with authority inhume alia "to direct and oversee the operations and internal administration" of the Bank.
It esteem obvious that, whereas the functions of the Monetary Board might be compared to those virtuous the Board of Directors cosy up a corporation, the role complete the Governor of the Main Bank may, in turn, breed likened to that of chairman and general manager of much corporation, with the duties good turn responsibilities of a department intellect of the government.
In actuality, the Governor's duty to govern and supervise the operations trip internal administration of the treasury logically entails the power persist prefer charges against erring directorate of the Bank and curb see to it that spoken charges are properly investigated, that being an intrinsic element insinuate the internal administration of put into words institution.1äwphï1.ñët
Wherefore, the decision appealed pass up is hereby affirmed, with expenditure against the petitioner.
It evenhanded so ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar become more intense Sanchez, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
The Lawphil Undertaking - Arellano Law Foundation