Facts:

This case revolves around the reinstatement of Vicente S. Pulido, an executive sheriff and court liaison officer, who was appointed to his position by Mayor Antonio J. Villegas on December 23, 1969. Previously, Pulido served as a branch clerk of court in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where the clerk is designated as the ex-officio sheriff. Following his appointment, the Municipal Board, through Resolution No. 65 dated February 24, 1970, officially changed Pulido's title to executive sheriff and court liaison officer while increasing his salary to twenty thousand pesos per year, an action approved by Mayor Villegas.

On February 1, 1972, Pulido faced administrative charges from eight employees who accused him of engaging in partisan political activities to support Mayor Villegas during the 1971 elections. Consequently, on February 15, 1972, after Mayor Ramon D. Bagatsing won the 1971 mayoralty race, Pulido was suspended by the Mayor. To contest this suspension, Pulid

...

Facts:

Appointment and Designation of Pulido

• On December 23, 1969, Mayor Antonio J. Villegas appointed Vicente S. Pulido as chief deputy sheriff and chief of division of the Manila sheriff’s office through Item 2 of Budget Ordinance No. 6651.
• Prior to the appointment, Pulido held the position of branch clerk of court in the Court of First Instance of Manila, making him, by tradition, the ex-officio sheriff.
• The Municipal Board subsequently, by Resolution No. 65 dated February 24, 1970, changed his designation to executive sheriff and court liaison officer (assistant chief of office) and increased his salary to twenty thousand pesos per annum.
• Mayor Villegas approved the resolution, thereby formalizing Pulido’s status and compensation.

Allegations of Partisan Political Activity and Suspension

• On February 1, 1972, eight employees accused Pulido of engaging in partisan political activities in favor of Mayor Villegas during the 1971 elections.
• In response, on February 15, 1972, Mayor Ramon D. Bagatsing—who had defeated Villegas in the mayoralty contest—suspended Pulido.
• Pulido filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition on March 9, 1972 before the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking a preliminary mandatory injunction for his reinstatement and restraining the administrative investigation.

Lower Court Proceedings and Orders

• The lower court, on March 11, 1972, ordered Mayor Bagatsing to reinstate Pulido and temporarily restrained the continuation of the administrative investigation.
• After Pulido posted separate bonds of five hundred pesos each, the lower court issued a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction along with a temporary restraining order on March 13, 1972.
• Motions for reconsideration by Bagatsing and his investigators (Jesus L. Carmelo and Francisco L. Pimentel) were denied in an April 6, 1972 order.

Filing of Special Civil Actions and Subsequent Developments

• On April 11, 1972, Mayor Bagatsing, Carmelo, and Pimentel filed special civil actions of certiorari and prohibition in the Court seeking to annul the lower court’s orders, including the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction and the stay on the administrative investigation.
• A temporary restraining order was issued by the Court on April 27, 1972, later amended on May 10, 1972 to permit the administrative investigation to proceed without rendering any decision.
• Pulido filed his answer, and the case was duly heard with parties submitting memoranda.

Resignation and Mootness Issue

• On October 9, 1972, following Letters of Instruction Nos. 14 and 14-A, Pulido tendered his resignation as executive sheriff to the Secretary of Justice.
• Mayor Bagatsing maintained that Pulido’s resignation should be submitted to his office since Pulido was considered a city employee.
• The Secretary of Justice eventually transmitted Pulido’s letter of resignation on January 3, 1973, which was accepted by Mayor Bagatsing with effectiveness from February 6, 1973.
• Pulido later moved for reconsideration, arguing that his resignation’s acceptance conflicted with the restraining order issued by the Court, while his petition sought to maintain the status quo pending the resolution of whether the Mayor or the Secretary of Justice had removal authority.
• Both parties eventually asserted that the case was moot due to the acceptance of the resignation. However, the underlying issue of removal authority remained central to the controversy.

Involvement of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and Subsequent Motions

• The Comelec had previously filed five criminal cases against Pulido for electioneering, all of which were dismissed by the Court of First Instance of Manila for insufficiency of evidence.
• On December 4, 1974, the Comelec’s Amnesty Special Division declared Pulido eligible for amnesty under Presidential Decree No. 433.
• Despite the amnesty order, Pulido requested Mayor Bagatsing to dismiss the administrative case, lift his suspension, and reinstate him, but the Mayor did not act on this request.
• On January 8, 1975, Pulido filed an urgent motion in the Court to lift the restraining order so that he could be reinstated.

Dual Nature of Pulido’s Position

• Pulido’s appointment created a controversy regarding his status: he was, on one hand, a city employee appointed and compensated by the city government, and on the other, a judicial functionary working under the Court of First Instance.
• This duality raised questions regarding who had the exclusive authority to investigate, suspend, discipline, and remove him—the Mayor of Manila or the Secretary of Justice (and by extension, the Court).

Issue:

Jurisdiction and Authority Over Personnel

• Whether the lower court, in ordering Pulido’s reinstatement and restraining the administrative investigation, acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
• More specifically, whether the Court of First Instance of Manila (and by extension the judiciary) possessed inherent power to control Pulido’s conduct and investigate his alleged misconduct.

Separation of Powers and Disciplinary Jurisdiction

• Whether the Mayor of Manila, having appointed Pulido from city funds and under the City Charter (sections 11[q] and 22), was properly vested with the disciplinary authority to investigate, suspend, discipline, and remove him.
• Whether Pulido, due to his dual role as both a city employee and a functionary of the Court, should be subject to the administrative supervision of the Secretary of Justice or the municipal authority of the Mayor.

Mootness of the Case

• Whether the acceptance of Pulido’s resignation by Mayor Bagatsing rendered the instant case moot.
• Whether the resignation effectively terminated the controversy over his employment and thus precluded further judicial intervention regarding his reinstatement and the administrative investigation.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)