BACULI v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Francisco T. Baculi v.Office of the President, The Secretary of Agrarian Reform and  the Regional Director of Agrarian Reform, Region 2

G.R. No. 188681/G.R. No. 201130

March 8, 2017

Facts of the Case:

On July 16, 1988, the petitioner was appointed as Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) II of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) - Cagayan by then President Corazon C. Aquino. In 1991, acting in his capacity as PARO II, he entered into several contracts with various suppliers for the lease of typewriters, computers, computer printers, and other accessories. Separate reports from the DAR Commission on Audit and the DAR Regional Investigating Committee of Cagayan, however, revealed that the foregoing transactions were tainted with irregularities. Both bodies found that the petitioner entered into contracts beyond the scope of his signing or approving authority, which was up to P50,000.00, as provided in DAR General Memorandum Order No. 4, Series of 1990; that he executed and approved contracts of lease without the corresponding Certificate of Availability of Funds as provided in Section 86 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, otherwise known as the Auditing Code of the Philippines; and that there was no public bidding held for the purpose in violation of the Commission on Audit Circular No. 85-55-A.

A formal charge against the petitioner for gross dishonesty, abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service simultaneous to the charge, the petitioner was placed under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days pending the investigation of the complaint. The petitioner alleged that the formal charge issued by Secretary Garilao was null and void because it was based on the report of the DAR Regional Investigating Committee, a body bereft of authority to investigate administrative complaints against presidential appointees like him pursuant to DAR Memorandum Order No. 5, Series of 1990.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not the order of dismissal issued by the Acting Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs was valid.

Ruling:

(1) The first dismissal of Baculi was void For one, presidential appointees come under the direct disciplining authority of the President pursuant to the wellsettled principle that, in the absence of a contrary law, the power to remove or to discipline is lodged in the same authority in whom the power to appoint is vested. Thus, Baculi, as a presidential appointee, came under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the President in line with the principle that the "power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint." 13 As such, the DAR Secretary held no disciplinary jurisdiction over him. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 807 has expressly specified the procedure for disciplinary actions involving presidential appointees.

(2) The second dismissal of Baculi was valid In the absence of a law or administrative issuance barring the DARRIC from conducting its own investigation of Baculi even when there was no complaint being first filed against him, the eventual report rendered after investigation was valid