Vacancies and succession have original jurisdiction to investigate and decide on matters involving disciplinary action.

MACALINCAG v. CHANG They are the proper disciplining authority referred to in Sec. 41.
PARAS
Municipal treasurer Chang was ordered preventively suspended by acting Secretary of
Finance Macalincag after he was charged administratively for several violations of law.
Chang argued that the suspension was not valid as the power to appoint, and consequently,
the power to suspend was now vested in the President by virtue of EO 392, and no one had
been appointed to replace him. The Court ruled that the SoF could suspend him and that
the preventive suspension became effective upon his receipt of the order; designation of a
replacement was not a requirement.
DOCTRINE
- The appointment of the local treasurer is vested in the Secretary of Finance.
- Designation of a replacement in case of vacancy is not a requirement to give effect to a
suspension.
The MT is under the DOF. Hence, the SoF is the proper disciplinary authority to
issue the OPS. Macalincag acted within his jurisdiction.
Even assuming that the power to appoint includes the power to discipline,
Macalincag as acting SoF is an alter ego of the President.
2. W/N the OPS was effective - YES
The OPS became effective upon receipt, and not, as argued by Chang, upon the
designation of an OIC to replace him.
Designation of the replacement is not a requirement to give effect to the preventive
suspension. The LGC provides for the automatic assumption of the asst. MT or next in
rank in case of suspension.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Petition granted.

DIGESTER: Gabi Timbancaya

FACTS
1. 06 Oct. 1989: municipal treasurer (MT) Roberto Chang was charged administratively
by Lorinda Carlos (Executive Director of the Bureau of Local Government) with
approval by Finance Usec. (and Acting Sec.) Victor Macalincag for dishonesty,
neglect of duty, and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
2. Chang allegedly violated the election ban, made unauthorized disbursements and
cash overdrafts, and falied to remit to the Bureau of Treasury.
3. Macalincag issued an order of preventive suspension (OPS) against Chang “effective
upon receipt” citing Sec. 41 of PD 807.
4. Macalincag wrote the Governor of the Metro Manila Commission asking him to
implement the OPS and designate an OIC. Chang was furnished with the OPS.
5. Chang filed for prohibition with WPI which was denied. Upon MR, Chang raised
Sec. 8 of the then-recently issued EO 392 (Constituting the Metropolitan Manila
Authority).1 The petition was granted.
6. EO 392 vested in the President the power to appoint MTs in Metro Manila.
7. RTC: For an OPS to be implemented, there are two steps: (1) service of a copy of the
order on the respondent and (2) designation of his replacement. Until an acting
treasurer is appointed, the OPS is incomplete.

ISSUE with HOLDING

1. W/N the Secretary of Finance has jurisdiction to issue an OPS against the
acting municipal treasurer of Makati – YES
Chang argues that only the President can suspend him as EO 392 now vests in him
the power to appoint.
Before EO 392, the power to appoint MTs was vested in the PTs and assessors of
the municipalities concerned and then transferred to the Commissioner of Finance under
PD 921. Under both decrees, the power of appointment was made subject to civil service
laws and the approval of the Sec. of Finance.
Under Sec. 37 of PD 807, The power to discipline is specifically vested under in
heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities, provinces and chartered cities who

1
Sec. 8. All city and municipal treasurers, municipal assessors and their assistants as well as shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines, upon recommendation of the Council,
other officials whose appointment is currently vested upon the Metropolitan Manila Commission subject to the Civil Service law, rules and regulations.
1