Villaluz v.

Zaldivar (December 31, 1965)

G.R. No. L-22754|Bautista Angelo, J.

F: Petitioner Ruben Villaluz was nominated as chief of the Motor Vehicles Office on maY 20,
1958 and was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments 2 days later. He then took his
oath office. On January 28, 1960, Congressman Joaquin Roces, as Chairman of the Committee on
Good Government of the HOR, sent a letter to the President, informing him of the alleged gross
mismanagement and inefficiency committed by petitioner in the Motor Vehicles Office.
Congressman Roces recommended the replacement of petitioner and his assistant chief Aurelio
de Leon as well as the complete revamp of the offices under the Motor Vehicles Office. After the
Secretary of Public Works and Communications was informed of the letter, furnished petitioner
a copy, requiring him to explain why no administrative action should be taken against him.
Petitioner answer and refuted each of the charges. Then Executive Secretary Castillo then
suspended petitioner as Administrator of the Motor Vehicles Office, and created an
investigation committee, wherein the prosecution panel was headed by Special Prosecutor
Gancayco, and after the investigation, the committee submitted its report to the President who
then issued Admin Order 332 decreeing petitioner’s removal from office. Villaluz filed a motion
for reconsideration and/or reinstatement but was denied, hence this petition.

I1: WON the President of the RP has jurisdiction to investigate and remove petitioner.

H1: Yes. Petitioner, being a presidential appointee, belongs to the non- competitive or
unclassified service of the gov’t and as such, he can only be investigated and removed from
office after due hearing the President of the Philippines under the principle that “the power to
remove is inherent in the power to appoint”. However, the power of control of the President
may extend to the power to investigate, suspend or remove officers and employees who belong
to the executive department if they are presidential appointees or do not belong to the classified
service for such can be justified under the principle that the power to rmove is inherent in the
power to appoint but not w/ regard to those officers or employees who belong, to the classified
service for as to them that power cannot be exercised.

I2: WON the Chief Executive is empowered to commence administrative proceedings motu
proprio w/o need of any previous verified complaint.

H2: Yes. E.O. 370, series of 1941 states that administrative proceedings may be commenced a
gov’t officer or employee by the head or chief of the bureau or office concerned motu proprio or
upon complaint of any person w/c shall be subscribed under oath by the complainant; provided,
that if a complaint is not or cannot be sworn to by the complainant, the head or chief of the
bureau or office concerned may in his discretion, take action thereon if the public interest or the
special circumstances of the case so warrant.