A.M. No. 00-1258-MTJ - Spouses Sena vs. Villarin

In the early part of 1957, an investigation was conducted by an investigator from the Governor’s Office of Catanduanes concerning various complaints preferred against Mayor Primo Panti of Virac, his vice-mayor, and councilors.
Based on the findings, Governor Juan Alberto determined that there was merit in the complaints and formally lodged specific charges of irregularities against these officials.

A letter from the Governor dated September 4, 1957, detailed that during the construction of the Hicming-Dugui Road—a municipal project undertaken under the Mayor’s supervision—Mayor Panti authorized laborers to sign payrolls covering wages for 14 days while they, in fact, worked only for three days.
It was further alleged that after the laborers collected funds corresponding to 14 days (P56.00 each), Mayor Panti collected this sum from them and returned only the amount corresponding to three days’ wages (P12.00).

On September 5, 1957, Governor Alberto formally notified Mayor Panti of his suspension, effective that same day, based on the irregularities charged.
The Provincial Board was set to conduct a hearing initially on September 12, 1957. However, due to the Mayor’s subsequent request for a copy of the complaint and a postponement—which was denied—the hearing could not proceed as scheduled.

The hearing was repeatedly postponed due to the absence of Mayor Panti and his counsel:

On October 11, 1957, the hearing was finally convened when Mayor Panti and his co-respondents appeared for the first time with counsel; however, during this session, they raised for the first time the issue that the Provincial Board lacked jurisdiction because the charges were unrelated to their official duties.
Despite motions for further postponement, the Board denied such requests, proceeded ex parte on October 15, 1957, and rendered its decision on October 21, 1957.

On October 7, 1957, Mayor Panti and his co-respondents filed two petitions with the Court of First Instance of Catanduanes—one for certiorari with preliminary injunction and another for mandamus—challenging the legality of their suspension and seeking reinstatement.
The two cases were consolidated due to their interrelation.
On March 28, 1958, the court dismissed the case with regard to Mayor Panti for lack of merit, while it ruled that for the other respondents the Governor had exceeded his authority by suspending them, and accordingly ordered their reinstatement.
Mayor Panti subsequently appealed the decision.

Whether the charges preferred against Mayor Panti bore a direct relation to his official duties, thereby justifying his suspension as a public officer.
Whether the presentation of the padded payrolls appropriately reflected acts connected to his role as mayor.

Whether the preventive suspension of Mayor Panti was illegal on the ground that it exceeded the 30-day period prescribed by law.
The issue revolved around the computation of the suspension period considering the interruptions and delays attributable to the appellant’s own actions.