G.R. No. 223595 - SHERWIN T. GATCHALIAN, VS. ROMEO V. URRUTIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the appeal of Romeo V. Urrutia, is hereby GRANTED. The Commission finds the formal charge and order of preventive suspension issued by Valenzuela City Mayor Sherwin T. Gatchalian NULL and VOID. Accordingly, Urrutia is immediately reinstated to his former position with payment of back salaries corresponding to the period of unlawful preventive suspension without awaiting the outcome of the case. [56] On August 31, 2012, the City Government of Valenzuela, through Gatchalian and his counsel, moved for the reconsideration [57] of CSC Decision No. 120465. [58] On November 26, 2012, the CSC issued Resolution No. 12-02112, [59] denying Gatchalian's Motion for Reconsideration and affirming its July 26, 2012 Decision, reinstating Urrutia to his former position with payment of back salaries. The dispositive portion of the Resolution reads: WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration of the City Government of Valenzuela is DENIED for lack of merit. Accordingly, the Decision dated July 26, 2012 granting the appeal of Romeo V. Urrutia, finding the formal charge and order of preventive suspension null and void and immediately reinstating Urrutia to his former position with payment of back salaries corresponding to the period of the unlawful preventive suspension without awaiting the outcome of the main case, STANDS. [60] On January 3, 2013, Gatchalian filed a petition for review [61] of Resolution No. 12-02112 before the CA. A month later, or on February 8, 2013, Gatchalian sent a letter [62] to Eric Martinez (Martinez), former Vice-Mayor of Valenzuela City, requesting the Office of the Vice Mayor to "confirm, adopt, and subscribe to the administrative proceedings conducted by the Committee on Decorum and [Investigation] (CODI) and any [and] and all actions undertaken on the matter against Mr. Urrutia." [63] Gatchalian deemed Martinez to have acquiesced to the mayor's actions because the vice-mayor did not intervene, take action or object to the acts. [64] Ruling of the Court of Appeals: In its Decision [65] dated December 11, 2015, the CA ruled that the CSC did not err when it ruled that Gatchalian's formal charge and preventive suspension order issued against Urrutia were null and void. The CA found that Gatchalian, as the Mayor of Valenzuela City, had no power to issue the formal charge and the preventive suspension order. In its Resolution [66] dated March 16, 2016, the CA denied Gatchalian's motion for reconsideration [67] absent valid ground to reverse, modify or set aside the December 11, 2015 Decision. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari [68] filed before the Court. Issues I. Whether or not the CA committed reversible error on a question of law in dismissing the petition on the basis that Gatchalian, the City Mayor, has no power to issue a formal charge and preventive suspension order against Urrutia, a city council employee, despite the express grant of plenary disciplining authority to the city mayor over all officials and employee