Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Statcon

    Uploaded by

    Clea Amber Fullante
    47 views1 page
    The petitioner-appellant Arturo B. Pascual, the mayor of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, was facing administrative charges related to misconduct during a prior term. He sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Provincial Board from investigating the charges. The Court held that it was legally proper for Pascual to seek judicial action without exhausting administrative remedies first, as the key legal issue was whether a public officer could be investigated for acts from a prior term after being reelected. The Court also held that reelection operates as a condonation of prior misconduct such that a public officer should not be removed for such acts, as that would deprive voters of their choice. The order denying the writ

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The petitioner-appellant Arturo B. Pascual, the mayor of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, was facing administrative charges related to misconduct during a prior term. He sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Provincial Board from investigating the charges. The Court held that it was legally proper for Pascual to seek judicial action without exhausting administrative remedies first, as the key legal issue was whether a public officer could be investigated for acts from a prior term after being reelected. The Court also held that reelection operates as a condonation of prior misconduct such that a public officer should not be removed for such acts, as that would deprive voters of their choice. The order denying the writ

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    47 views1 page

    Statcon

    Uploaded by

    Clea Amber Fullante
    The petitioner-appellant Arturo B. Pascual, the mayor of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, was facing administrative charges related to misconduct during a prior term. He sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the Provincial Board from investigating the charges. The Court held that it was legally proper for Pascual to seek judicial action without exhausting administrative remedies first, as the key legal issue was whether a public officer could be investigated for acts from a prior term after being reelected. The Court also held that reelection operates as a condonation of prior misconduct such that a public officer should not be removed for such acts, as that would deprive voters of their choice. The order denying the writ

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    ARTURO B.

    PASCUAL, petitioner-appellant,
    vs.
    HON. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF NUEVA ECIJA, respondent-appellee.
    G.R. No. L-11959, October 31, 1959
    GUTIERREZ DAVID, J.:

    LAW IN QUESTION:

    The underlying theory is that each term is separate from other terms, and that the reelection to
    office operates as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right
    to remove him.

    FACTS:

    This is an appeal to revoke an order of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija denying
    appellant's petition for a writ of prohibition with preliminary injunction.

    Petitioner-appellant Arturo B. Pascual had been elected mayor of San Jose, Nueva Ecija, in
    November 1951 and reelected in 1955. In October 6, 1956, the Acting Provincial Governor of that province
    filed with the Provincial Board three administrative charges against the said appellant. Charge III was for
    "Mal administrative, Abuse of Authority, and Usurpation of Judicial Functions," committed as follows:

    Without legal authority, and with grave abuse of authority, assumed and usurped the judicial
    powers of the said justice of the peace by accepting the criminal complaint filed the said court,
    conducting the preliminary investigation thereof, fixing the bail bond and issuing the corresponding
    warrant of arrest; and after the accused in the said criminal case had been arrested, while the justice of the
    peace was in his office in San Jose, Nueva Ecija, the herein respondent, in defiance of the express refusal
    by the justice of the peace to reduce the bail bond of the accused in, acted on the motion to reduce bail
    and did reduce the bail bond.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not it was legally proper for petitioner-appellant to have come to court without first
    bringing his case to the Executive Secretary for review.

    HELD:

    Yes. True it is that, in this jurisdiction, the settled rule is that where the law has delineated the
    procedure by which administrative appeal or remedy could be effected, the same should be followed
    before recourse to judicial action can be initiated, but we believe that this rule is not without exceptions,
    as in a case like the present, where the only question to be settled in the prohibition proceedings is a
    purely legal one — whether or not a municipal mayor may be subjected to an administrative investigation
    of a charge based on misconduct allegedly committed by him during his prior term.

    The underlying theory is that each term is separate from other terms, and that the reelection to
    office operates as a condonation of the officer's previous misconduct to the extent of cutting off the right
    to remove him.

    The Court should never remove a public officer for acts done prior to his present term of office.
    To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers. When the people
    have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and
    character, and that they disregarded or forgave his faults or misconduct, if he had been guilty of any. It is
    not for the court, by reason of such faults or misconduct to practically overrule the will of the people.

    In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is hereby revoked; the writ of prohibition
    prayed for is hereby granted and the preliminary injunction heretofore issued made permanent.

    You might also like