This is a petition for prohibition and mandamus, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, premised upon the following facts:

Petitioner, Melecia M. Macabuhay, is the Division Superintendent of Schools for the Division of Batangas I, province of Batangas,^[1] while respondent, Galo Manalo, is the Division Superintendent of Schools for the Division II, of the same province.^[2]

On December 19, 1973, one Irma P. Ortiz, a resident of Bo. Balisong, Taal, Batangas, filed with the Office of the Secretary of Education and Culture, a sworn-letter complaint^[3]  against the petitioner and Adela A. Pesigan, Principal Teacher of Balisong Elementary School, District of Taal, Batangas. On April 22, 1974, the respondent Secretary of Education and Culture rendered a decision,^[4] considering the petitioner resigned from the service and dismissing Adela A. Pesigan.

Claiming that they were not accorded due process by the respondent Secretary of Education and Culture and the respondent Director of Public Schools, they filed in this Court, a petition for prohibition and mandamus, docketed as G.R. NO. L-38568, entitled "Melecia M. Macabuhay, et al. vs. Hon. Juan L. Manuel, et al.," which was dismissed by this Court, on July 31, 1974 for having become moot and academic, after the parties -- upon this Court's suggestion -- had arrived at an agreement on a modus operandi in the disposition of the administrative complaint against the petitioners.^[5]

In the meantime, while the reinvestigation of the administrative complaint against the petitioner was underway, the reorganization of the Department of Education and Culture, pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1, was implemented. Divisions I and II of the Province of Batangas were merged into one Division of Batangas.^[6]

Believing that respondent Galo Manalo would be appointed to the new Division of Batangas as Division Superintendent,^[7]  the petitioner instituted the instant petition praying among others that respondents Secretary of Education and Culture, Director of Public Schools and Commissioner of Civil Service be prohibited from appointing respondent Galo Manalo as Division Superintendent of the New Division of Batangas and from filling permanently the said position pending the termination of the administrative case against her, and in the event that she is exonerated of the charges, the said respondents should, instead, be ordered to appoint her to the said position; that respondent members of the Investigating Committee be ordered to hold more frequent and longer hearings in order to expedite the termination of the administrative case against her; and that the respondent Secretary of Education and Culture be ordered to pay her salaries during the period of her leave under the terms of the agreement of the parties in G.R. No. L-38568.^[8]

On July 2, 1974, this Court issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the respondent Secretary of Education and Culture, Director of Public Schools and Commissioner of Civil Service from appointing respondent Galo Manalo as Public Schools Superintendent of the New Division of Batangas and from filling permanently the said position.^[9]

Meanwhile, after the respondent public officials had filed their comment^[10]  to the petition, the President of the Philippines directed and/or instructed all department heads, including the respondent Secretary of Education and Culture, to submit a list of government officials and employees under their respective departments facing administrative charges. In compliance therewith, respondent Secretary of Education and Culture, submitted the list required, which included the names of petitioner Melecia M. Macabuhay and Adela A. Pesigan. On September 19, 1975, on the occasion of the celebration of the third anniversary of the New Society, the President of the Philippines announced during his speech the weeding out of undesirable employees and officials from the government service.^[11] Among those purged from the Department of Education and Culture, as published in the October 1, 1975 issue of "Bulletin Today", was the petitioner.^[12]

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a reply to respondents' comment with supplemental pleading,^[13]  claiming, among others, that respondent Secretary of Education and Culture acted oppressively and vindictively in including her name in the list submitted to the President of the Philippines,^[14]  and accordingly pleads that the said list be declared as illegal and null and void as basis of her dismissal from the government service.^[15]

In their rejoinder to petitioner's reply and comment on the supplemental pleading,^[16] respondent public officials, by and thru the Solicitor General, alleged inter alia  that the instant case had become moot and academic due to the dismissal of the petitioner from the service by the President of the Philippines.^[17]

Considering that the purpose of the main petition in the present case is to have the petitioner appointed as Public Schools Superintendent of the New Division of Batangas, and since the petitioner had already reached the compulsory age of retirement on August 25, 1976,^[18] the same is now moot and academic.

Be that as it may, We find the petitioner's supplemental petition to be meritorious. In including the petitioner's name in the list of officials and employees in the Department of Education and Culture facing administrative charges, the respondent Secretary acted not only oppressively but also in flagrant violation of the agreement of the parties in the previous case (L-40872), to wit:

 

xxx xxx xxx

 

"2. The evidence already presented will remain on the record. Counsel for petitioners will be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who testified ex-parte against them during the investigation conducted by Atty. Dumlao.

 

xxx xxx xxx

 

"4. As stated in the respondents' manifestation of July 26, 1974, 'the administrative investigation of petitioners will continue to be conducted with the formalities and under the rules and procedure provided for by law in administrative hearings and that, needless to say, both the complainant and respondents in the said investigation will be accorded a fair and impartial investigation consonant with the requirements of due process.'

 

"5. Afterwards, a new decision will be rendered."

Obviously, the petitioner's inclusion in the aforesaid list and her consequent summary dismissal from the government service are unwarranted, and in effect, deprived the petitioner of her right to due process. Hence, petitioner's summary dismissal is null and void.^[19]

Petitioner is in no way to blame for the unreasonably long delay in the investigation of the administrative case against her. Because of the protracted investigation, she reached the compulsory age of retirement without any decision being reached in the administrative case against her. Nonetheless, she is entitled to such a decision.

WHEREFORE, the petition to have Melecia C. Macabuhay appointed Public Schools Superintendent of the New Division of Batangas, being moot and academic in view of her reaching the age of compulsory retirement, is hereby dismissed. However, the prayer in her Reply with Supplemental Pleading, dated November 6, 1976, is granted. Administrative Case No. R-423 against Melecia C. Macabuhay is consequently considered dismissed and terminated and she is absolved and declared innocent of all the charges against her. Furthermore, she is hereby granted all the retirement benefits she is entitled to under the law at the time of her compulsory retirement on August 25, 1976^[20] and the immediate payment of such benefits by the Government Service Insurance System is hereby ordered. Without costs.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, Antonio, Muñoz Palma, Santos, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concurs in a separate opinion.

Makasiar, J., concurs in the result.

Castro, C.J., and Aquino, J., took no part.

---

^[1] p. 3, rollo (L-40872).

^[2] p. 4, Ibid.

^[3] Annex "A", p. 7, rollo (L-38568)

^[4] Annex "O", p. 145, Ibid.

^[5] Annex "A", p. 27, rollo (L-40872). The terms of the agreement of the parties are summarized as follows:

"1. The investigation, this time, will be conducted by a committee to be appointed by the respondent Secretary of Education and Culture, as in fact, he has already constituted said committee, composed of the Undersecretary of Education and Culture, Hon. Narciso Albarracin, as Chairman, and two members, one of them being Atty. Nellie Tansioco. Inasmuch as there is a protest against the membership in said committee of Atty. Antonio G. Dumlao, the petitioners have agreed to replace him, the replacement to be made as soon as possible.

2. The evidence already presented will remain on the record. Counsel for petitioners will be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who testified ex-parte against them during the investigation conducted by Atty. Dumlao.

3. Petitioners will go on official leave with pay, pending the continuation of the investigation of the charges against them. (They have already done so).

4. As stated in the respondents' manifestation of July 26, 1974, ''the administrative investigation of petitioners will continue to be conducted with the formalities and under the rules and procedure provided for by law in administrative hearings and that, needless to say, both the complainant and respondents in said investigation will be accorded a fair and impartial investigation consonant with the requirements of due process.'

5. Afterwards, a new decision will be rendered." (p. 28, rollo).

^[6] pp. 9-10; 58, rollo (L-40872).

^[7] pp. 10, 11-12, Ibid.

^[8] pp. 23-24, rollo (L-40872).

^[9] pp. 37-38, rollo (L-40872).

^[10] pp. 54-76, Ibid.

^[11] pp. 127-132, 219, Ibid.

^[12] pp. 128-129, 167, Ibid.

^[13] pp. 95-150, Ibid.

^[14] pp. 134-135, Ibid.

^[15] p. 147, Ibid.

^[16] pp. 212-224, Ibid.

^[17] pp. 222-224, Ibid.

^[18] See Motion for Timely Decision, dated and filed on June 1, 1976.

^[19] It is to be presumed that the President would not have ordered the dismissal of petitioner had he been properly apprised by respondent public officials of the pendency of this case and its antecedents.

^[20] Cf. Villanos vs. Subido, L-23169, May 31, 1972, 45 SCRA 299.

tags