G.R. No. 223595 - Gatchalian vs. Urrutia

Petitioner: Sherwin T. Gatchalian, former Mayor of Valenzuela City.
Respondent: Romeo V. Urrutia, Records Officer IV in the Council Secretariat of the Sangguniang Panlungsod and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the City Government of Valenzuela City Employees Cooperative.
Nature of the Case: Dispute over the validity of the formal charge for sexual harassment and the corresponding preventive suspension order issued by Gatchalian against Urrutia.

On December 22, 2011, Urrutia was alleged to have committed sexual harassment against Elizabeth B. Laron, an on‐the‐job trainee/student with the City Government of Valenzuela Employees Cooperative.
Laron filed her complaint on January 3, 2012, addressing it to Gatchalian and initially filing it with the Women’s Desk of the Human Resources and Management Office (HRMO).
The HRMO indorsed the complaint to the Personnel Complaints and Ethics Board (PCEB) of the City.
On January 10, 2012, PCEB Chairman Roberto Darilag ordered Urrutia to submit his counter-affidavit/comment under oath and noted the earlier constitution of the investigatory committee.
On January 11, 2012, Darilag advised Laron to amend her complaint to include Urrutia’s complete details in accordance with CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 (Administrative Discipline Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases).
Laron filed the amended complaint on January 12, 2012.

Urrutia, on January 16, 2012, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, questioning the constitution and authority of the Committee on Decorum and Investigation, and arguing non-compliance with the Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases.
On January 26, 2012, the PCEB denied Urrutia’s motion to dismiss, holding that:

The constitution of the Committee by Gatchalian was valid and within the ambit of the law.
Laron’s amendment sufficiently cured the defects of her original complaint.

The PCEB directed Urrutia to submit his counter-affidavit/comment under oath on the amended complaint.
Urrutia then filed a motion for reconsideration on January 30, 2012, reiterating his prior allegations and claiming the amended complaint was an afterthought that did not satisfy legal requirements.
On February 13, 2012, the PCEB denied the motion for reconsideration, affirming its previous resolution.

On February 15, 2012, Gatchalian issued Executive Order (EO) 2012-006 creating the City Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI) to implement the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 and the Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases.
On February 16, 2012, CODI adopted Resolution No. 2012-001, which set the rules for its proceedings and divided the committee into:

On March 2, 2012, CODI denied a motion to dismiss Urrutia’s case due to his failure to file his counter-affidavit, ruling that his right to submit a defense had been waived.
Recognizing that the preliminary investigation exceeded the statutory 15 working days, CODI-I terminated the investigation and on March 21, 2012, prepared an Investigation Report and Recommendation.

The report concluded that a prima facie case of sexual harassment existed against Urrutia.
It recommended filing a formal charge against him and placing him under immediate preventive suspension.

On March 23, 2012, the Office of the City Mayor issued both the formal charge and the order of preventive suspension against Urrutia, giving him 72 hours to submit his answer under oath and other supporting evidence.
Urrutia filed an urgent omnibus motion on March 26, 2012, seeking reconsideration, a recall of the suspension, and the dissolution of the formal charge, questioning the creation and jurisdiction of the new CODI.

While the administrative case proceeded before CODI, Urrutia forwarded a memorandum of appeal to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on May 17, 2012, challenging the preventive suspension and the CODI’s jurisdiction.
CODI, on July 4, 2012, issued Resolution No. 2012-008 finding Urrutia liable for sexual harassment (a grave offense) and recommending his dismissal.
On August 15, 2012, CODI denied another motion for reconsideration by Urrutia and reaffirmed its findings.
On July 26, 2012, the CSC issued a Decision granting Urrutia’s appeal, ruling the formal charge and order of preventive suspension null and void, and reinstating him with back pay.
On November 26, 2012, the CSC further issued Resolution No. 12-02112, denying Gatchalian’s motion for reconsideration and affirming the CSC’s Decision.
Gatchalian petitioned for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), and on December 11, 2015, the CA ruled that Gatchalian, as the City Mayor, lacked the authority to discipline Urrutia.
On March 16, 2016, the CA denied Gatchalian’s motion for reconsideration, thereby affirming its December 11, 2015 decision.

Claiming that as the city mayor, he possessed plenary disciplining authority over all officials and employees of the city, including Urrutia, regardless of Urrutia’s appointment by the vice-mayor.
Supported by his establishment of the CODI and the subsequent administrative proceedings against Urrutia.

Argued that his appointment was under the purview of the City Vice Mayor pursuant to Section 456 of the Local Government Code of 1991, and that the mayor lacked jurisdiction to discipline him.
Highlighted alleged procedural and constitutional defects in the composition and actions of the investigatory bodies (PCEB and CODI).

Whether the city mayor had the statutory authority to issue a formal charge and preventive suspension order against a sangguniang panlungsod employee like Urrutia.

Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that the city mayor, Gatchalian, lacked the authority to discipline Urrutia, a sangguniang panlungsod employee, despite the local chief executive’s plenary disciplining power.
Whether it was erroneous to interpret that only the vice-mayor, as the appointing authority under Section 456 of the Local Government Code of 1991, had the power to discipline Urrutia.
Whether the exclusion of the city mayor as the proper disciplining authority, as prescribed by CSC Resolution No. 01-0940, was legally sustainable given the mayor’s plenary power over city officials and employees.
Whether the CA erred in not addressing the issue of Urrutia’s active participation in the CODI proceedings, which could estop him from contesting the mayor’s disciplinary authority.
Singular Issue Summary: Whether the local chief executive (the city mayor) possesses the power to issue a formal charge and impose a preventive suspension against an employee of the sangguniang panlungsod for sexual harassment.