Case Summary (G.R. No. L-67181)
Petitioner
Jesus L. Carmelo, in his capacity as Chairman of the Probe Committee, Office of the Mayor of Manila, sought an order declaring Ramos in contempt for failing to comply with duly served subpoenas.
Respondent
Armando Ramos, a private citizen employed as bookkeeper by the owner of Casa de Alba, who refused committee subpoenas and relied on his privilege against self-incrimination.
Key Dates
• February 3, 1960: Executive Order creates the investigative committee.
• June 3, 8, 9, 15, 16 and August 4, 11, 1960: Subpoenas served on Ramos.
• November 30, 1962: Supreme Court renders its decision affirming the dismissal of the contempt petition.
Applicable Law
• Executive Order establishing the committee (no explicit subpoena power)
• Section 580, Revised Administrative Code (powers incidental to taking of testimony)
• Rule 64, Rules of Court (contempt power exercisable by courts only)
• Section 22, Republic Act No. 409 (Mayoral power to suspend or remove city employees)
• Pre-1987 constitutional separation-of-powers principles
Factual Background
The committee issued multiple subpoenas to Ramos to testify in an administrative proceeding against certain City Treasurer’s Office personnel. Ramos had previously admitted to internal investigators that he misappropriated funds entrusted to him by the owner of Casa de Alba. Ramos refused to appear for both administrative hearings and to confirm his admissions, asserting that compulsion would violate his right against self-incrimination.
Procedural Posture
Petitioner filed a contempt petition in the Court of First Instance of Manila, arguing that Ramos’s refusal obstructed administrative proceedings. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that (1) the committee lacked statutory authority to issue subpoenas or administer oaths, and (2) compelling testimony would infringe Ramos’s privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner appealed.
Legal Issue
Whether an administrative committee created by municipal executive order possesses inherent or implied authority to issue subpoenas and seek contempt sanctions against non-compliant witnesses.
Analysis of Statutory Authority
• Rule 64’s contempt provisions apply exclusively to judicial bodies, not municipal committees, except where administrative contempt is expressly defined (Revised Administrative Code § 580).
• Section 580 authorizes nonjudicial bodies to summon witnesses only if they already possess authority to take testimony or evidence; it does not itself create that initial authority.
• The Mayor’s power to investigate—implied from his authority under RA 409 to suspend or remove employees—does not extend to delegating core judicial functions such as administering oaths, taking testimony, or issuing subpoenas. Precedents (People v. Mendoza & Dizon; Francia v. Pecson) underscore that such powers cannot be conferred by
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-67181)
Facts of the Case
- On February 3, 1960, the Mayor of Manila issued an Executive Order creating a committee “to investigate the anomalies involving the license inspectors and other personnel of the License Inspection Division of the Office of the City Treasurer and of the License and Permits Division of this Office (of the Mayor).”
- The Mayor named Jesus L. Carmelo as chairman of the investigative committee.
- The committee issued subpoenas to Armando Ramos, a private bookkeeper at Casa de Alba, requiring him to appear on June 3, 8, 9, 15, 16 and August 4 and 11, 1960, in connection with an administrative case against Crisanto Estanislao.
- Ramos was duly served but refused to appear before the committee on all dates specified.
- In a prior statement given to the Mayor’s investigators, Ramos admitted misappropriating sums entrusted by the owner of Casa de Alba for tax payments from 1956 to 1959, a fact undiscovered because he entertained City Treasurer’s employees at Casa de Alba.
Procedural History
- Petitioner, Jesus L. Carmelo, filed a petition for contempt in the Court of First Instance of Manila, alleging that Ramos’s refusal to appear “tended to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administrative proceedings.”
- The trial court required petitioner to establish a prima facie case and subsequently dismissed the petition, holding:
- No law empowers a mayoral investigative committee to issue subpoenas or require oath-bound testimony.
- Compelling Ramos to testify would violate his constitutional right against self-incrimination.
- Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court under G.R. No. L-17778. The Supreme Court heard arguments and rendered its decision on November 30, 1962.
Issue
- Whether a committee created by the Mayor of Manila possesses, under existing law, the power to:
- Subpoena witnesses to appear before it;
- Administer oaths and take testimony; and
- Invoke judicial contempt proceedings against a non-complying witness.
Applicable Legal Provisions
- Rule 64 (Contempt) of the Rules of Court:
- Section 4 confines contempt power to inferior and superior courts.
- Does not cover administrative bodies