Facts:

The case involves administrative matter no. P-91, wherein Judge Manuel D. Ballelos, the municipal court judge of Monreal, Masbate, is the complainant against Rodolfo A. Rejuso, the clerk-stenographer of the same court. The events leading to this case began when, on August 7, 1972, Rejuso complied with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Masbate court of first instance, producing certain municipal court records related to a criminal case in which Judge Ballelos himself was the accused. Following this, on August 10, 1972, Ballelos filed administrative charges against Rejuso, alleging inefficiency, incompetence, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Ballelos personally served the complaint and formally notified Rejuso of an upcoming investigation scheduled for August 21, 1972. When Rejuso sought a postponement and requested that Ballelos inhibit himself from presiding over the investigation due to bias, Ballelos rejected these requests. Instead, he acted un

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Complainant: Manuel D. Ballelos, then-judge of the municipal court of Monreal, Masbate.
• Respondent: Rodolfo A. Rejuso, clerk-stenographer of the same court.

Chronology of Events

• August 7, 1972
• Respondent, in compliance with a subpoena duces tecum issued by the Masbate court of first instance, submitted certain municipal court records as required in a criminal case where Complainant was the accused.
• August 10, 1972
• Complainant filed charges against Respondent alleging inefficiency, incompetence, and conduct prejudicial to the service.
• The charges included claims that Respondent had refused to tender his resignation pursuant to the President’s Letter of Instruction and had “been notoriously undesirable.”
• Service of Complaint and Subsequent Developments
• Complainant personally served the complaint on Respondent on August 21, 1972, with notice of an impending investigation.
• Respondent sought a postponement and requested that Complainant refrain from investigating his own complaint.
• Complainant rejected these requests and instead submitted his unilateral findings to the Department of Justice, recommending Respondent’s dismissal.
• Administrative and Investigative Proceedings
• The Department of Justice, disregarding Complainant’s arbitrary unilateral action, referred the complaint to the CFI Executive Judge following established procedures.
• The investigation was assigned to the clerk of court, who sent formal notices for a hearing scheduled on October 30, 1972.
• Summary Dismissal
• On October 23, 1972, Complainant, via his letter dated October 27, 1972, informed the clerk of court that he had summarily dismissed Respondent based on the charges.
• Complainant did not appear at the scheduled hearing; Respondent moved for the dismissal of the complaint and nullification of the summary dismissal.
• Investigation and Report
• The clerk of court conducted a hearing in Respondent’s sole testimony after Complainant filed only a perfunctory postponement note.
• The clerk’s report found the charges against Respondent unmeritorious, recommended nullifying the summary dismissal, and advised that Respondent be reinstated.
• Judicial Decision
• The records were transferred to the Court by an indorsement dated June 7, 1973 from the Department of Justice.
• The Court approved the clerk's report, finding that Complainant’s actions were vindictive and arbitrary.
• It was ascertained that Complainant’s dismissal amounted to an unauthorized usurpation of power that was vested in the Department of Justice.
• Although punitive measures against Complainant were indicated, his subsequent resignation accepted on August 25, 1975, rendered disciplinary action moot.

Settlement of the Case

• It was noted that despite the unwarranted summary dismissal being carried out as a fait accompli (since Respondent received payment for his last service period and ceased reporting for duty), Respondent sought only reinstatement in the service.
• The Court ordered the immediate reinstatement of Respondent, subject solely to the standard requirement of physical fitness.

Issue:

Whether Complainant’s filing of administrative charges against Respondent, and his subsequent summary dismissal, were motivated by vindictiveness and arbitrary use of power.

• Did Complainant act in retaliation, considering Respondent’s role as a subpoenaed witness and his compliance in submitting records in the criminal case against Complainant?
• Was the dismissal properly executed under the applicable administrative procedures and authority?

Whether the summary dismissal of Respondent can be sustained given the established rules and proper due process in administrative actions.

• Should the unilateral findings and dismissal made by Complainant be considered valid without the involvement of the Department of Justice’s procedures?

• Whether the investigation conducted by the clerk of court suffices to nullify the summary dismissal and justify the order for Respondent’s reinstatement.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)