Facts:

The case involves Vicente S. Pulido, who was appointed as the chief deputy sheriff and later designated as the executive sheriff and court liaison officer of the sheriff's office in Manila. His appointment was made by Mayor Antonio J. Villegas on December 23, 1969, and was later approved by the Municipal Board in Resolution No. 65 on February 24, 1970, which also increased his salary to twenty thousand pesos per annum. Pulido had previously served as a branch clerk of court in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where the Clerk of Court is the ex-officio sheriff.

On February 1, 1972, Pulido faced administrative charges from eight employees for engaging in partisan political activities during the 1971 elections. Following this, on February 15, 1972, Mayor Ramon D. Bagatsing, who had defeated Villegas in the mayoral race, suspended Pulido. In response, Pulido filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against Mayor Bagatsing and his investigators, Jesus L. Carmel...

Facts:

1. Appointment and Designation of Pulido:

   • On December 23, 1969, Vicente S. Pulido was appointed by Mayor Antonio J. Villegas as Chief Deputy Sheriff and Chief of Division of the Sheriff's Office in Manila.
   • On February 24, 1970, the Municipal Board changed Pulido's designation to Executive Sheriff and Court Liaison Officer, with an increased salary of P20,000 per annum.

2. Administrative Charges and Suspension:

   • On February 1, 1972, eight employees charged Pulido with engaging in partisan political activities during the 1971 elections in favor of Mayor Villegas.
   • On February 15, 1972, Mayor Ramon D. Bagatsing, who defeated Villegas in the 1971 elections, suspended Pulido.

3. Legal Proceedings:

   • On March 9, 1972, Pulido filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, seeking reinstatement and to restrain the administrative investigation.
   • The lower court, on March 11, 1972, ordered Pulido's reinstatement and temporarily restrained the administrative investigation.

4. Supreme Court Intervention:

   • On April 11, 1972, Mayor Bagatsing and his investigators filed a special civil action of certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court to annul the lower court's orders.
   • The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order on April 27, 1972, allowing the administrative investigation to proceed but prohibiting any decision until further orders.

5. Resignation and Amnesty:

   • On October 9, 1972, Pulido tendered his resignation as Executive Sheriff to the Secretary of Justice.
   • On December 28, 1972, Mayor Bagatsing requested the Secretary of Justice to forward Pulido's resignation to his office, which was done on January 3, 1973.
   • On February 6, 1973, Mayor Bagatsing accepted Pulido's resignation.
   • On December 4, 1974, the Commission on Elections granted Pulido amnesty under Presidential Decree No. 433, leading Pulido to request reinstatement.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Mayor's Authority Over Pulido:

   • Pulido, as an Executive Sheriff and Court Liaison Officer appointed by the Mayor and paid from city funds, was a city employee subject to the Mayor's disciplinary jurisdiction.
   • The power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint, and the Mayor's authority to discipline Pulido was supported by the City Charter and Civil Service Law.

2. Lower Court's Abuse of Discretion:

   • The lower court erred in assuming it had the prerogative to control Pulido's conduct as a ministerial officer of the court.
   • The Mayor's dual role as the aggrieved party and investigator did not violate due process, as the Mayor had the authority to investigate city employees.

3. Mootness of the Case:

   • The acceptance of Pulido's resignation rendered the case moot, as the primary objective of the petition (to prevent Pulido's reinstatement) was achieved.
   • The Supreme Court dismissed the case without costs.

Concurring Opinion (Justice Fernando):

• Justice Fernando concurred with the decision but emphasized the importance of judicial independence. He argued that sheriffs, as court functionaries, should not be under the control of local government executives to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure the impartiality of the judiciary.