G.R. No. 208595 - Escabarte vs. Heirs of Isaw

On August 25, 1956, Ernesto V. Rosales filed a verified complaint against petitioner Rodolfo Ganzon, then Mayor of Iloilo City.
The complaint contained three counts alleging:

That on August 22, 1956, the respondent, taking advantage of his public position and accompanied by armed bodyguards and henchmen, forcibly entered the DYRI broadcasting station in Iloilo City.
That he used violence and intimidation to stop the radio-press interview program “People’s Forum,” thereby suppressing the complainant’s right to free speech, the station’s right to broadcast, and the public’s right to receive information.

That during the incident in Count 1, the respondent personally pushed aside microphones and struck the complainant on the neck.
That these physical acts, aimed at stopping the complainant’s role as a radio commentator and a panel member of the public service program, constituted oppression and misconduct in office.

That in a fit of anger, the respondent hurled invectives against the complainant, using derogatory epithets including “indecent, bad-mannered” and “dam-nogood-Cebuano,” which were considered both oppressive and defamatory.

On September 13, 1956, the Executive Secretary, by authority of the President, designated respondent (as the investigating official) to look into the complaint pursuant to Section 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code.
The respondent served a copy of the complaint on the petitioner on September 18, 1956, and initially scheduled the investigation for September 20, 1956.
Petitioner’s motion for postponement resulted in the investigation being rescheduled to September 25 and 26, 1956.

On September 24, 1956, petitioner brought an action for prohibition with preliminary injunction before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, challenging:

The lower court, on September 26, 1956, declined to issue the writ of prohibition and instead set the case for a hearing on the merits scheduled on September 28, 1956.
During the hearing, both parties admitted all the facts as pleaded, and the lower court rendered its decision on October 2, 1956, dismissing petitioner’s petition.
After the petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, he elevated the matter to appeal.

The case involves the interpretation of the powers vested in the President under the Revised Administrative Code and the Constitution:

Section 64(c) of the Revised Administrative Code, which allows the President to order investigations for the public service’s good.
Section 10(1), Article VII of the Constitution, which grants the President control over executive departments and oversight over local governments.

The petitioner’s status as the duly elected Mayor of Iloilo City is underscored by the city charter (Commonwealth Act No. 158, as amended), which specifies that he “shall hold office for six years unless removed” but does not indicate removal at the pleasure of the President.
The case references earlier decisions (e.g., Lacson vs. Roque; State ex rel Gallaghar vs. Brown) to highlight that while some municipal officers enjoy a fixed tenure, removal for cause remains applicable.

The charges are penal in nature and seek punitive or disciplinary remedies.
The only ground for removal of an elective city mayor, as per the city charter, is disloyalty to the Republic, which the complaint does not establish.

The charges, however, specifically allege that the petitioner abused his public position by committing acts of violence, intimidation, and verbal defamation against the complainant, actions that were argued to constitute misconduct in office.

Whether the President of the Philippines has the constitutional and statutory authority to order an investigation against the mayor of a city, which in this case is petitioner‑appellant Rodolfo Ganzon.
Whether the complaint’s charges are merely penal or if they also warrant disciplinary action, including potential suspension or removal from office.
Whether the administrative complaint sufficiently alleges acts constituting disloyalty to the Republic—a ground explicitly provided in the charter for removal—or whether other analogous grounds such as oppression, dishonesty, and misconduct in office may be applied by analogy.
Whether the procedural and substantive remedies sought in the complaint (including suspension pending final determination) align with the powers conferred upon the President and with established legal precedent regarding removal of local officials.