Beja SR v. CA

9/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 207
VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 689

Beja, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 97149. March 31, 1992.
FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF

APPEALS, HONORABLE REINERIO O. REYES, in his
capacity as Secretary of the Department of Transportation
and Communications; COMMODORE ROGELIO A.
DAYAN, in his capacity as General Manager of the
Philippine Ports Authority; DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS,
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION BOARD; and JUSTICE
ONOFRE A. VILLALUZ, in his capacity as Chairman of
the Administrative Action Board, DOTC, respondents.
Administrative Law; Suspension; Preventive suspension

distinct from the administrative penalty of removal from office
such as one mentioned in Sec. 8 (d) of P.D. No. 857.—Imposed
during the pendency of an administrative investigation,
preventive suspension is not a penalty in itself. It is merely a
measure of precaution so that the employee who is charged may
be separated, for obvious reasons, from the scene of his alleged
misfeasance while the same is being investigated. Thus
preventive suspension is distinct from the administrative penalty
of removal from office such as the one mentioned in Sec. 8 (d) of
P.D. No. 857. While the former may be imposed on a respondent
________________
* EN BANC.
690
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174908b9b94193409b8003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
during the investigation of the charges against him, the latter is

the penalty which may only be meted upon him at the
termination of the investigation or the final disposition of the
case.
Same; Same; The PPA general manager is the disciplining
authority who may by himself and without the approval of the
PPA Board of Directors subject a respondent in an administrative
case to preventive suspension.—The PPA general manager is the
disciplining authority who may, by himself and without the
approval of the PPA Board of Directors, subject a respondent in
an administrative case to preventive suspension. His disciplinary
powers are sanctioned, not only by Sec. 8 of P.D. No. 857
aforequoted, but also by Sec. 37 of P.D. No. 807 granting heads of
agencies the “jurisdiction to investigate and decide matters
involving disciplinary actions against officers and employees” in
the PPA.
Same; Same; Preventive suspension may be lifted even if the
disciplining authority has not finally decided the administrative
case provided the ninety-day period from the effectivity of the
preventive suspension has been exhausted.—Parenthetically, the
period of preventive suspension is limited. It may be lifted even if
the disciplining authority has not finally decided the
administrative case provided the ninety-day period from the
effectivity of the preventive suspension has been exhausted. The
employee concerned may then be reinstated. However, the said
ninety-day period may be interrupted. Section 42 of P.D. No. 807
also mandates that any fault, negligence or petition of a
suspended employee may not be considered in the computation of
the said period. Thus, when a suspended employee obtains from a
court of justice a restraining order or a preliminary injunction
inhibiting proceedings in an administrative case, the lifespan of
such court order should be excluded in the reckoning of the
permissible period of the preventive suspension.
Same; Same; By vesting the power to remove erring employees
on the General Manager, with the approval of the PPA Board of
Directors, the law impliedly grants said officials the power to
investigate its personnel below the rank of Assistant Manager who
may be charged with an administrative offense.—Although the
foregoing section does not expressly provide for a mechanism for
an administrative investigation of personnel, by vesting the power
to remove erring employees on the General Manager, with the
approval of the PPA Board of Directors, the law impliedly grants
said officials the power to investigate its personnel below the rank
of Assistant Manager who may be charged with an administrative
offense. During such investigation,
691
VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 691
the PPA General Manager, as earlier stated, may subject the

employee concerned to preventive suspension. The investigation
should be conducted in accordance with the procedure set out in
Sec. 38 of P.D. No. 807.
PETITION for certiorari to review the decisions of the

Court of Appeals. Aldecoa, Jr., J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Rogelio Zosa Bagabuyo for petitioner.
ROMERO, J.:
The instant petition for certiorari questions the jurisdiction

of the Secretary of the Department of Transportation and
Communications (DOTC) and/or its Administrative Action
Board (AAB) over administrative cases involving personnel
below the rank of Assistant General Manager of the
Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), an agency attached to
the said Department. 1
Petitioner Fidencio Y. Beja, Sr. was first employed by
the PPA as arrastre supervisor in 1975. He became
Assistant Port Operations Officer in 1976 and Port
Operations Officer in 1977. In February 1988, as a result of
the reorganization of the PPA, he was appointed Terminal
Supervisor.
On October 21, 1988, the PPA General Manager, Rogelio
A. Dayan, filed Administrative Case No. 11-04-88 against
petitioner Beja and Hernando G. Villaluz for grave
dishonesty, grave misconduct, willful violation of
reasonable office rules and regulations and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Beja and
Villaluz allegedly erroneously assessed storage fees
resulting in the loss of P38,150.77 on the part of the PPA.
Consequently, they were preventively suspended for the
charges. After a preliminary investigation conducted by the
district attorney for Region X, Administrative Case No. 11-
04-88 was “considered closed for lack of merit.”
On December 13, 1988, another charge sheet, docketed
as Administrative Case No. 12-01-88, was filed against
Beja by the
_______________
1 Petitioner was referred to as “Fidencio Y. Beja” in the proceedings

below. He appears as “Fidencio Y. Beja, Sr.” for the first time in this
forum.
692

PPA General manager also for dishonesty, grave

misconduct, violation of reasonable office rules and
regulations, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service and for being notoriously undesirable. The charge
consisted of six (6) different specifications of administrative
offenses including fraud against the PPA in the total
amount of P218,000.00. Beja was also placed under
preventive suspension pursuant to Sec. 41 of P.D. No. 807.
The case was redocketed as Administrative Case No.
PPA-AAB-1-049-89 and thereafter, the PPA general
manager in-dorsed it to the AAB for “appropriate action.”
At the scheduled hearing, Beja asked for continuance on
the ground that he needed time to study the charges
against him. The AAB proceeded to hear the case and gave
Beja an opportunity to present evidence. However, on
February 20, 1989, Beja filed a petition for certiorari with
preliminary injunction
2
before the Regional Trial Court of
Misamis Oriental. Two days later, he filed with the AAB a
manifestation and motion to suspend the hearing of
Administrative Case No. PPA-AAB-1-049-89 on account of
the pendency of the certiorari proceeding before the court.
AAB denied the motion and continued with the hearing of
the administrative case.
Thereafter, Beja moved for the dismissal of the
certiorari case below and proceeded to file before this Court
a petition for certiorari with preliminary injunction and/or
temporary restraining order. The case was docketed as
G.R. No. 87352 captioned “Fidencio Y. Beja v. Hon.
Reinerio O. Reyes, etc., et al.” In the en banc resolution of
March 30, 1989, this Court referred3 the case to the Court of
Appeals for “appropriate action.” G.R. No. 87352 was
docketed in the Court of Appeals as CA-G.R. SP No. 17270.
Meanwhile, a decision was rendered by the AAB in
Administrative Case No. PPA-AAB-049-89. Its dispositive
portion reads:
________________
2 Case No. 89-053.
3 Two other cases involving substantially the same issues were likewise
referred by the Court to the Court of Appeals: G.R. Nos. 86468-69
(Leopoldo F. Bungubung v. Hon. Reinerio O. Reyes, et al.) and G.R. No.
86646 (Reinerio O. Reyes, et al. vs. Cristeto O. Dinopol, et al.).
693
VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 693

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, adjudging the

following, namely:
a) That respondents Geronimo Beja, Jr. and Hernando

Villaluz are exonerated from the charge against them;
b) That respondent Fidencio Y. Beja be dismissed from the
service;
c) That his leave credits and retirement benefits are declared
forfeited;
d) That he be disqualified from re-employment in the
government service;
e) That his eligibility is recommended to be cancelled. Pasig,
Metro Manila, February 28, 1989.”
On December 10, 1990, after appropriate proceedings,

4
the
Court of Appeals also rendered a decision in CA-G.R. SP
No. 17270 dismissing the petition for certiorari for lack of
merit. Hence, Beja elevated the case back to this Court
through an “appeal by certiorari with preliminary
injunction and/or temporary restraining order.”
We find the pleadings filed in this case to be sufficient
bases for arriving at a decision and hence, the filing of
memoranda has been dispensed with.
In his petition, Beja assails the Court of Appeals for
having “decided questions of substance in a way probably
not in accord
5
with law or with the applicable decisions” of
this Court. Specifically, Beja contends that the Court of
Appeals failed to declare that: (a) he was denied due
process; (b) the PPA general manager has no power to issue
a preventive suspension order without the necessary
approval of the PPA board of directors; (c) the PPA general
manager has no power to refer the administrative case filed
against him to the DOTC-AAB, and (d) the DOTC
Secretary, the Chairman of the DOTC-AAB and DOTC-
AAB itself as an adjudicatory body, have no jurisdiction to
try the administrative case against him. Simply put, Beja
challenges the legality of the preventive suspension and
the jurisdiction of the DOTC Secretary and/or the AAB to

initiate and hear
__________________
4 Penned by Justice Venancio D. Aldecoa, Jr. and concurred in by

Justices Fidel P. Purisima and Abelardo M. Dayrit.
5 Petition, p. 3; Rollo, p. 4.
694

administrative cases against PPA personnel below the rank

of Assistant General Manager.
Petitioner anchors his contention that the PPA general
manager cannot subject him to a preventive suspension on
the following provision of Sec. 8, Art. V of Presidential
Decree No. 857 reorganizing the PPA:
“(d) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval of the

Board, appoint and remove personnel below the rank of Assistant
General Manager.” (Italics supplied.)
Petitioner contends that under this provision, the PPA

Board of Directors and not the PPA
6
General Manager is the
“proper disciplining authority.”
As correctly observed by the Solicitor General, the
petitioner erroneously equates “preventive suspension” as a
remedial measure with “suspension” as a penalty for
administrative dereliction. The imposition of preventive
suspension on a government employee charged with an
administrative offense is subject to the following provision
of the Civil Service Law, P.D. No. 807:
“Sec. 41. Preventive Suspension.—The proper disciplining

authority may preventively suspend any subordinate officer or
employee under his authority pending an investigation, if the
charge against such officer or employee involves dishonesty,
oppression or grave misconduct, or neglect in the performance of
duty, or if there are reasons to believe that the respondent is
guilty of charges which would warrant his removal from the
service.”
Imposed during the pendency of an administrative

investigation, preventive suspension is not a penalty in
itself. It is merely a measure of precaution so that the
employee who is charged may be separated, for obvious
reasons, from the scene of his alleged7

misfeasance while
the same is being investigated. Thus preventive
suspension is distinct from the administrative pen-
________________
6 Petition, pp. 13-14; Rollo, pp. 14-15.

7 Bautista v. Peralta, L-21967, September 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 223, 225-
226.
695
VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 695

alty of removal from office such as the one mentioned in

Sec. 8 (d) of P.D. No. 857. While the former may be imposed
on a respondent during the investigation of the charges
against him, the latter is the penalty which may only be
meted upon him at the termination of the investigation or
the final disposition of the case.
The PPA general manager is the disciplining authority
who may, by himself and without the approval of the PPA
Board of Directors, subject a respondent in an
administrative case to preventive suspension. His
disciplinary powers are sanctioned, not only by Sec. 8 of
P.D. No. 857 aforequoted, but also by Sec. 37 of P.D. No.
807 granting heads of agencies the “jurisdiction to
investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary
actions against officers and employees” in the PPA.
Parenthetically, the period of preventive suspension is
limited. It may be lifted even if the disciplining authority
has not finally decided the administrative case provided
the ninety-day period from the effectivity of the preventive
suspension has been exhausted.
8
The employee concerned
may then be reinstated. However, the said ninety-day
period may be interrupted. Section 42 of P.D. No. 807 also
mandates that any fault, negligence or petition of a
suspended employee may not be considered in the
computation of the said period. Thus, when a suspended
employee obtains from a court of justice a restraining order
or a preliminary injunction inhibiting proceedings in an
administrative case, the lifespan of such court order should
be excluded in the reckoning 9
of the permissible period of
the preventive suspension.
With respect to the issue of whether or not the DOTC
Secretary and/or the AAB may initiate and hear
administrative cases against PPA Personnel below the
rank of Assistant General Manager, the Court qualifiedly

rules in favor of petitioner. The PPA was created through
P.D. No. 505 dated July 11, 1974. Under that Law, the
corporate powers of the PPA were vested in a governing
Board of Directors known as the Philip-
_______________
8 Sec. 42, P.D. No. 807.

9 Orbos v. Bungubung, G.R. No. 92358, November 21, 1990, 191 SCRA
563.
696

pine Port Authority Council. Sec. 5(i) of the same decree

gave the Council the power “to appoint, discipline and
remove, and determine the composition of the technical
staff of the Authority and other personnel.”
On December 23, 1975, P.D. No. 505 was substituted by
P.D. No. 857, Sec. 4(a) thereof created the Philippine Ports
Authority which would be “attached” to the then
Department of Public Works, Transportation and
Communication. When Executive Order No. 125 dated
January 30, 1987 reorganizing the Ministry of
Transportation and Communications
10
was issued, the PPA
retained its “attached” status. Even Executive Order No.
292 or the Administrative Code of 1987 classified the PPA
as an agency “attached” to the Department of
Transportation and Communications (DOTC). Sec. 24 of
Book IV, Title XV, Chapter 6 of the same Code provides
that the agencies attached to the DOTC “shall continue to
operate and function in accordance with the respective
charters or laws creating them, except when they conflict
with this Code.”
Attachment of an agency to a Department is one of the
three administrative relationships mentioned in Book IV,
Chapter 7 of the Administrative Code of 1987, the other
two being supervision and control and administrative
supervision. “Attachment” is defined in Sec. 38 thereof as
follows:
“(3) Attachment.—(a) This refers to the lateral relationship

between the department or its equivalent and the attached agency
or corporation for purposes of policy and program coordination.
The coordination shall be accomplished by having the department
represented in the governing board of the attached agency or

corporation, either as chairman or as a member, with or without
voting rights, if this is permitted by the charter; having the
attached corporation or agency comply with a system of periodic
reporting which shall reflect the progress of programs and
projects; and having the department or its equivalent provide
general policies through its representative in the board, which
shall serve as the framework for the internal policies of the
attached corporation or agency;
(b) Matters of day-to-day administration or all those

pertaining to internal operations shall be left to the
discretion or judgment of the executive officer of the
agency or corporation. In the event that the
_______________
10 Sec. 18(a).
697
VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 697

Secretary and the head of the board or the attached

agency or corporation strongly disagree on the
interpretation and application of policies, and the
Secretary is unable to resolve the disagreement, he shall
bring the matter to the President for resolution and
direction;
(c) Government-owned or controlled corporations attached to
a department shall submit to the Secretary concerned
their audited financial statements within sixty (60) days
after the close of the fiscal year; and
(d) Pending submission of the required financial statements,
the corporation shall continue to operate on the basis of
the preceding year’s budget until the financial statements
shall have been submitted. Should any government-owned
or controlled corporation incur an operation deficit at the
close of its fiscal year, it shall be subject to administrative
supervision of the department; and the corporation’s
operating and capital budget shall be subject to the
department’s examination, review, modification and
approval.” (Italics supplied.)
An attached agency has a larger measure of independence

from the Department to which it is attached than one
which is under departmental supervision and control or
administrative supervision. This is borne out by the

“lateral relationship” between the Department and the
attached agency. The attachment is merely for “policy and
program coordination.” With respect to administrative
matters, the independence of an attached agency from
Departmental control and supervision is further reinforced
by the fact that even an agency under a Department’s
administrative supervision is free from Departmental
interference with respect to appointments and other
personnel actions “in accordance with the decentralization
of personnel
11
functions” under the Administrative Code of
1987. Moreover, the Administrative Code explicitly
provides that Chapter 8 of Book IV on supervision and
control shall not
12
apply to chartered institutions attached to
a Department.
Hence, the inescapable conclusion is that with respect to
the management of personnel, an attached agency is, to a
certain extent, free from Departmental interference and
control. This is more explicitly shown by P.D. No. 857
which provides:
_______________
11 Sec. 38 (2), par. (b).

12 Sec. 39 (2).
698

“SEC. 8. Management and Staff.—a) The President shall, upon

the recommendation of the Board, appoint the General Manager
and the Assistant General Managers.
b) All other officials and employees of the Authority shall be

selected and appointed on the basis of merit and fitness
based on a comprehensive and progressive merit system to
be established by the Authority immediately upon its
organization and consistent with Civil Service rules and
regulations. The recruitment, transfer, promotion, and
dismissal of all personnel of the Authority, including
temporary workers, shall be governed by such merit
system.
c) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval of the
Board, determine the staffing pattern and the number of
personnel of the Authority, define their duties and
responsibilities, and fix their salaries and emoluments.
For professional and technical positions, the General

Manager shall recommend salaries and emoluments that
are comparable to those of similar positions in other
government-owned corporations, the provisions of existing
rules and regulations on wage and position classification
notwithstanding.
d) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval by the
Board, appoint and remove personnel below the rank of
Assistant General Manager.
x x x x x x x x x” (Italics supplied.)
Although the foregoing section does not expressly provide

for a mechanism for an administrative investigation of
personnel, by vesting the power to remove erring
employees on the General Manager, with the approval of
the PPA Board of Directors, the law impliedly grants said
officials the power to investigate its personnel below the
rank of Assistant Manager who may be charged with an
administrative offense. During such investigation, the PPA
General Manager, as earlier stated, may subject the
employee concerned to preventive suspension. The
investigation should be conducted in accordance
13
with the
procedure set out in Sec. 38 of P.D. No. 807. Only after
gathering sufficient
_______________
13 “SEC. 38. Procedure in Administrative Cases Against Non-

Presidential Appointees.—(a) Administrative proceedings may be
commenced against a subordinate officer or employee by the head of
department or office of equivalent rank, or head of local government, or
chiefs of agencies, or regional directors, or upon sworn written complaint
of any other persons.
699
VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 699

facts may the PPA General Manager impose the proper

penalty in accordance with law. It is the latter action which
requires the
_______________
(b) In the case of a complaint filed by any other persons, the

complainant shall submit sworn statements covering his testimony
and those of his witnesses together with his documentary

evidence. If on the basis of such papers a prima facie case is found
not to exist, the disciplining authority shall dismiss the case. If a
prima facie case exists, he shall notify the respondent in writing,
of the charges against the latter, to which shall be attached copies
of the complaint, sworn statements and other documents
submitted, and the respondent shall be allowed not less than
seventy-two hours after receipt of the complaint to answer the
charges in writing under oath, together with supporting sworn
statements and documents, in which he shall indicate whether or
not he elects a formal investigation if his answer is not considered
satisfactory. If the answer is found satisfactory, the disciplining
authority shall dismiss the case.
(c) Although a respondent does not request a formal investigation,
one shall nevertheless be conducted when from the allegations of
the complaint and the answer of the respondent, including the
supporting documents, the merits of the case cannot be decided
judiciously without conducting such an investigation.
(d) The investigation shall be held not earlier than five days nor later
than ten days from the date of receipt of respondent’s answer by
the disciplining authority, and shall be finished within thirty days
from the filing of the charges, unless the period is extended by the
Commission in meritorious cases. The decision shall be rendered
by the disciplining authority within thirty days from the
termination of the investigation or submission of the report of the
investigator, which report shall be submitted within fifteen days
from the conclusion of the investigation.
(e) The direct evidence for the complainant and the respondent shall
consist of the sworn statement and documents submitted in
support of the complaint or answer, as the case may be, without
prejudice to the presentation of additional evidence deemed
necessary but was unavailable at the time of the filing of the
complaint or answer, upon which the cross-examination, by
respondent and the complainant, respectively, shall be based.
Following cross-examination, there may be redirect and recross-
examination.
(f) Either party may avail himself of the services of counsel and may
require the attendance of witnesses and the production of
documentary evidence in his favor through the compulsory process
of
700

14
approval of the PPA Board of Directors.
From an adverse decision of the PPA General Manager

and the Board of Directors, the employee concerned may
elevate the matter to the Department Head or Secretary.
Otherwise, he may appeal directly to the Civil Service
Commission. The permissive recourse to the Department
Secretary is sanctioned by the Civil Service Law (P.D. No.
807) under the following provisions:
“SEC. 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.—(a) The Commission shall

decide upon appeal all administrative disciplinary cases involving
the imposition of a penalty of suspension for more than thirty
days, or fine in an amount exceeding thirty days salary, demotion
in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office. A
complaint may be filed directly with the Commission by a private
citizen against a government official or employee in which case it
may hear and decide the case or it may deputize any department
or agency or official or group of officials to conduct the
investigation. The results of the investigation shall be submitted
to the Commission with recommendation as to the penalty to be
imposed or other action to be taken.
“(b) The heads of departments, agencies and instrumentalities,
provinces, cities and municipalities shall have jurisdiction to
investigate and decide matters involving disciplinary action
against officers and employees under their jurisdiction. The
decisions shall be final in case the penalty imposed is suspension
for not more than thirty days or fine in an amount not exceeding
thirty days’ salary. In case the decision rendered by a bureau or
office head is appealable to the Commission, the same may be
initially appealed to the department and finally to the Commission
and pending appeal, the same shall be
_______________
subpoena or subpoena duces tecum.

(g) The investigation shall be conducted only for the purpose of ascertaining
the truth and without necessarily adhering to technical rules applicable in
judicial proceedings. It shall be conducted by the disciplining authority
concerned or his authorized representative. The phrase any other party
shall be understood to be a complainant other than those referred to in
subsection (a) hereof.”
14 Under the last paragraph of Sec. 36 of P.D. No. 807, the disciplining
authority may impose the penalty of removal from the service, transfer, demotion
in rank, suspension for not more than one year without pay, fine in an amount not
exceeding six months’ salary, or reprimand.
701
VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 701
executory except when the penalty is removal, in which case the

same shall be executory only after confirmation by the
department head.
“x x x x x x x x x” (Italics supplied.)
It is, therefore, clear that the transmittal of the complaint

by the PPA General Manager to the AAB was premature.
The PPA General Manager should have first conducted an
investigation, made the proper recommendation for the
imposable penalty and sought its approval by the PPA
Board of Directors. It was discretionary on the part of the
herein petitioner to elevate the case to the then DOTC
Secretary Reyes. Only then could the AAB take jurisdiction
of the case.
The AAB, which was created during the tenure of
Secretary Reyes under Office Order No. 88-318 dated July
1, 1988, was designed to act, decide and recommend to him
“all cases of administrative malfeasance, irregularities,
grafts and acts of corruption in the Department.”
Composed of a Chairman and two (2) members, the AAB
came into being pursuant to Administrative 15 Order No. 25
issued by the President on May 25, 1987. Its special
nature as a quasi-judicial administrative body
notwithstanding, the AAB is not exempt 16
from the
observance of due process in its proceedings. We are not
satisfied that it did so in this case the respondents
protestation that petitioner waived his right to be heard
notwithstanding. It should be observed that petitioner was
precisely questioning the AAB’s jurisdiction when it sought
judicial recourse.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED insofar as it upholds the power of the PPA
General Manager to subject petitioner to preventive
suspension and REVERSED insofar as it validates the
jurisdiction of the DOTC and/or the AAB to act on
Administrative Case No. PPA-AAB-1-049-89 and rules that
due process has been accorded the petitioner.
The AAB decision in said case is hereby declared NULL
and VOID and the case is REMANDED to the PPA whose
General
_______________
15 Respondents’ Comment, p. 1; Rollo, p. 85.

16 Lupo v. Administrative Action Board, G.R. No. 89687, September 26,
1990, 190 SCRA 69.
702

Manager shall conduct with dispatch its reinvestigation.

The preventive suspension of petitioner shall continue
unless after a determination of its duration, it is found that
he had served the total of ninety (90) days in which case he
shall be reinstated immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J.), Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr.,

Cruz, Paras, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado,
Davide, Jr. and Nocon, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., On leave.
Padilla, J., No part; related to respondent
Honorable Reinerio O. Reyes.
Bellosillo, J., No part.
Power of PPA General Manager affirmed; jurisdiction of

DOTC reversed; AAB decision null and void.
Note.—Interruption on the administrative investigation

caused by petitioner’s own fault or upon his own request
shall not be counted in computing the 90-day statutory
limit of suspension (Layug vs. Quisumbing, 182 SCRA 46).
——o0o——
703
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Beja SR v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beja SR v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beja SR v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/15/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 207

VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 689

FIDENCIO Y. BEJA, SR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF

Administrative Law; Suspension; Preventive suspension

690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Beja, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

during the investigation of the charges against him, the latter is

VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 691

Beja, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals

the PPA General Manager, as earlier stated, may subject the

PETITION for certiorari to review the decisions of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The instant petition for certiorari questions the jurisdiction

1 Petitioner was referred to as “Fidencio Y. Beja” in the proceedings

692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PPA General manager also for dishonesty, grave

2 Case No. 89-053.

VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 693

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, adjudging the

a) That respondents Geronimo Beja, Jr. and Hernando

On December 10, 1990, after appropriate proceedings,

the jurisdiction of the DOTC Secretary and/or the AAB to

4 Penned by Justice Venancio D. Aldecoa, Jr. and concurred in by

694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

administrative cases against PPA personnel below the rank

“(d) The General Manager shall, subject to the approval of the

Petitioner contends that under this provision, the PPA

“Sec. 41. Preventive Suspension.—The proper disciplining

Imposed during the pendency of an administrative

reasons, from the scene of his alleged7

6 Petition, pp. 13-14; Rollo, pp. 14-15.

VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 695

alty of removal from office such as the one mentioned in

rank of Assistant General Manager, the Court qualifiedly

8 Sec. 42, P.D. No. 807.

696 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

pine Port Authority Council. Sec. 5(i) of the same decree

“(3) Attachment.—(a) This refers to the lateral relationship

represented in the governing board of the attached agency or

(b) Matters of day-to-day administration or all those

VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 697

Secretary and the head of the board or the attached

An attached agency has a larger measure of independence

administrative supervision. This is borne out by the

11 Sec. 38 (2), par. (b).

698 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“SEC. 8. Management and Staff.—a) The President shall, upon

b) All other officials and employees of the Authority shall be

For professional and technical positions, the General

x x x x x x x x x” (Italics supplied.)

Although the foregoing section does not expressly provide

13 “SEC. 38. Procedure in Administrative Cases Against Non-

VOL. 207, MARCH 31, 1992 699

facts may the PPA General Manager impose the proper

(b) In the case of a complaint filed by any other persons, the

and those of his witnesses together with his documentary

700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

From an adverse decision of the PPA General Manager

“SEC. 37. Disciplinary Jurisdiction.—(a) The Commission shall