Case Digest (G.R. No. 223595)
Facts:
Sherwin T. Gatchalian v. Romeo V. Urrutia, G.R. No. 223595, March 16, 2022, the Supreme Court Second Division, Hernando, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner is Sherwin T. Gatchalian, former Mayor of Valenzuela City; respondent is Romeo V. Urrutia, Records Officer IV of the Council Secretariat, Sangguniang Panlungsod of Valenzuela City, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the City Government of Valenzuela City Employees Cooperative.On January 3, 2012, Elizabeth B. Laron, an on‑the‑job trainee at the City Employees Cooperative, filed a sexual harassment complaint against Urrutia. The complaint was transmitted by the City HRMO to the Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board (PCEB). The PCEB, acting initially as Committee on Decorum and Investigation, directed Urrutia to file a counter‑affidavit; after procedural exchanges and an amended complaint by Laron, the PCEB denied Urrutia’s motions to dismiss and for reconsideration and advised him to file his counter‑affidavit.
On February 15, 2012, Mayor Gatchalian issued Executive Order No. 2012‑006 creating the City Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) to implement the Anti‑Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 and CSC Resolution No. 01‑0940 (the Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases). CODI divided into CODI‑I (preliminary investigation) and CODI‑II (formal hearing). CODI‑I prepared an investigation report finding a prima facie case and recommending filing of a formal charge and preventive suspension; on March 23, 2012, a formal charge and a 60‑day preventive suspension order were issued by the Office of the City Mayor, and Urrutia was given 72 hours to answer.
Urrutia filed multiple motions challenging CODI’s constitution and the mayor’s authority; CODI proceeded with a formal investigation and on July 4, 2012 issued Resolution No. 2012‑008 finding Urrutia liable for sexual harassment and dismissing him from service, later affirmed on motion for reconsideration. While the administrative case was pending, Urrutia appealed the mayor’s preventive suspension order to the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
On July 26, 2012, the CSC granted Urrutia’s appeal in CSC Case No. 120465, holding that Mayor Gatchalian lacked authority to file the formal charge and to preventively suspend Urrutia because Urrutia was a Sangguniang Panlungsod employee appointed by the Vice‑Mayor under Section 456(a)(2) of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), and thus those acts were null and void; the CSC ordered reinstatement with back salaries. The CSC denied the City’s motion for reconsideration on November 26, 2012.
Gatchalian appealed to the Court of Ap...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the petition on the basis that Mayor Gatchalian had no power to issue a formal charge and preventive suspension against Urrutia despite the Local Government Code’s plenary disciplining authority for the city mayor.
- Whether the CA committed reversible error in holding that only the Vice‑Mayor has sole jurisdiction to discipline sanggunian panlungsod employees because the power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint.
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that Mayor Gatchalian is not a proper disciplining authority under CSC Resolution No. 01‑0940 (Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases).
- Whether the CA erred in failing to find that Urrutia’s and his counsel’s participation in CODI estopped them from a...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)