VILLENA VS SECRETARY April 21, 1939 Original Action in the SC. Prohibition. Laurel J.

FACTS: the Division of Investigation of the Department of Justice, upon the request of the Secretary of the Interior, conducted an inquiry into the conduct of the petitioner o petitioner was found to have committed bribery, extortion, malicious abuse of authority and unauthorized practice of the law profession therefore, respondent recommended to the President of the Philippines the suspension of the petitioner to prevent possible coercion of witnesses. The Secretary of the Interior suspended the petitioner from office on February 9, 1939, and then and thereafter wired the Provincial Governor of Rizal with instruction that the petitioner be advised accordingly. Respondent wrote the petitioner a letter, specifying the many charges against him and notifying him of the designation of Emiliano Anonas as special investigator to investigate the charges. Initial investigation was moved from February 17 to March 28. Petitioner contends: o Secretary of Interior has no authority to suspend and decide also by himself the merits of the charges as the power to suspend municipal elective officials and to try and punish them for misconduct in office or dereliction of duty is lodged in some other agencies of the government o acts of the respondent in suspending the petitioner and in preferring by himself charges against him and in designating a special investigator are null and void because: respondent has exercised control over local governments when that power has been taken away from the President of the Philippines respondent should exercise supervising power if given by Sec 2188 of the Admin Code and procedures to be followed in suspending and punishing elective local government officials respondent exercises an arbitrary power making him the petitioner and judge at the same time action of respondent isnt based on any sworn statement of any citizen. Sec 2188 requires a complaint against elective municipal officials to be under oath in order to merit consideration by authority. Petitioner prays: o Writ of preliminary injunction until the case is decided by the court. o Declare respondent having no authority to suspend petitioner and order respondent to reinstate petitioner o Declare respondent has no authority to prefer charges and investigate petitioner. OSG contends

o o

section 79 (C) in relation with section 86 of the Revised Administrative Code expressly empowers the respondent \ to "order the investigation of any act or conduct of any person in the service of any bureau or office under his department" and in connection therewith to "designate an official or person who shall conduct such investigation" ection 2188 of the Revised Administrative Code, doesnt preclude respondent as Secretary of the Interior from exercising the power vested in him by section 79 (C) in relation with section 86 of the Revised Administrative Code; and that, moreover, said section 2188 must be read in relation with section 37 of Act No. 4007, known as the Reorganization Law of 1932; (Par. 4 [b].) at the commencement of the investigation the petitioner did not question the power or jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior to investigate the administrative charges against him but merely contended that the filing of said charges was not in accordance with law for the reason that they did not bear the oaths of the complainants no facts that will grant preliminary injunction it is a well-settled rule "that courts of equity have no power to restrain public officers by injunction from performing any official act which they are by law required to perform, or acts which are not in excess of the authority and discretion reposed in them."

ISSUES 1. WON Secretary of Interior has legal authority to order an investigation, by a special investigation appointed by him, of the charges of corruption and irregularity brought to his attention against the mayor of the municipality of Makati, Province of Rizal, who is the petitioner herein 2. WON Secretary of Interior has legal authority to decree the suspension of the said mayor pending the investigation of the charges. HELD 1. Yes 2. Yes RATIO 1. Sec 79, AC - direct control, direction, and supervision over all bureaus and offices under his jurisdiction. This should be interpreted in relation to Sec 68 which grants respondent executive suspension over administration of provinces, municipalities, chartered cities and other local political subdivisions. Therefore, the respondent does hold legal authority to order an investigation of charges against the petitioner and to appoint a special investigator for that purpose. 2. There is no clear and express grant of power to the respondent to suspend a mayor of a municipality under investigation, Sec 2188, AC power is in the provincial governor, but this doesnt mean that this grant of suspension is exclusive. The suspension is sustained on principal of approval by the President of the Philippines. Remember, the President approved the suspension of the petitioner therefore it cannot

be questioned because Sec 2 Art 7 of the 1987 Constitution says that administrative functions of the President is executed by the Department Heads, the respondent being one of them.