Facts:

The case involves Pablo Burguete, who was the municipal mayor of Badajoz, Province of Romblon, having been elected to the position in November 1951. The respondents in this case are Jovencio Q. Mayor, the provincial governor of Romblon, and Esteban B. Montesa, the acting municipal mayor of Badajoz. On August 21, 1952, a criminal complaint for serious slander was filed against Burguete in the justice of the peace court of Badajoz. Subsequently, on October 7, 1952, the case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Romblon. On November 13, 1952, Governor Jovencio Q. Mayor suspended Burguete from his position as mayor, citing the pending criminal case against him and referring to a "standing policy of the Administration" to suspend any elective official facing a criminal action involving moral turpitude. Following this suspension, Esteban B. Montesa, the vice-mayor, was directed to act as mayor. Burguete then filed a petition for mandamus and quo warranto against...

Facts:

Parties Involved

• Petitioner:

- Pablo Burguete, the duly elected municipal mayor of Badajoz, Province of Romblon (elected November 1951). - Jovencio Q. Mayor, the provincial governor of Romblon. - Esteban B. Montesa, the acting municipal mayor of Badajoz, designated to serve in place of the petitioner.

Chronology of Events

• August 21, 1952

- A criminal complaint for serious slander was filed against Pablo Burguete in the justice of the peace court of Badajoz. - The case was forwarded to the Court of First Instance of Romblon for further proceedings. - Jovencio Q. Mayor suspended Burguete from his office as municipal mayor on the ground that a criminal case involving charges of serious slander was pending, citing the Administration's standing policy to suspend any elective official facing a criminal action involving moral turpitude. - The Governor instructed Esteban B. Montesa, the vice-mayor, to act as mayor following the suspension. - Despite the filing of a motion to quash, the criminal case against Burguete could not be tried on merits due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses. - No administrative investigation under section 2188 of the Administrative Code was conducted by the provincial board.

Previous Jurisprudential Reference

• Reference to Lacson vs. Roque

- It was noted that in Lacson vs. Roque, the court held that the mere filing of an information for libel (or its equivalent, serious slander) against a municipal officer does not constitute sufficient grounds for suspending him. - The case emphasized that libel, including serious slander, does not necessarily involve moral turpitude and should not be used as an expedient to indefinitely suspend an elected official pending the outcome of a criminal case.

Petition for Relief

• Burguete filed a petition for mandamus and quo warranto seeking to restore his position and oust the acting municipal mayor.
• The petition was grounded on the argument that the suspension was illegal and unjustified in light of established legal principles and jurisprudence.

Issue:

Legality of Suspension

• Whether the suspension of an elected municipal mayor based solely on the filing of a criminal complaint, specifically for serious slander, is legally sound.
• Whether the pending criminal case provided adequate grounds for such suspension under administrative policies.

Application of Policy on Criminal Complaints

• Whether the government policy that suspends elected officials, pending adjudication of cases involving moral turpitude, can be properly applied when the charge (serious slander) may not necessarily imply moral turpitude.
• Whether the filing of a criminal complaint (or libel-like complaint) is an indisputable basis for such suspension.

Remedies Sought

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated as municipal mayor.
• Whether the acting municipal mayor, imposed by the suspension order, should be removed from office.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)