MACALINCAG V. CHANG
FACTS:
Roberto E. Chang, acting municipal treasurer of Makati, was charged administratively by Lorinda Carlos and Victor Macalincag, acting Finance Secretary, for illegal disbursements as well as failure to remit collections to the Bureau of Treasury. Included in the charge was on Order of Preventive Suspension for dishonesty, neglect of duty and acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Macalincag sent a letter to the Governor of the Metro Manila Commission (MMC) seeking the implementation of the preventive suspension. The Officer-in-Charge of the MMC furnished Chang a copy of the order through ordinary mail dated October 6, 1989. Chang, on the other hand, filed a petition for prohibition with writ of preliminary injunction and in the meantime, the RTC temporarily restrained Carlos and Macalincag from implementing the said order. Upon examination of the pleadings, the RTC denied Chang’s petition. Chang filed a motion for reconsideration, citing a new argument by invoking Sec. 8 of EO No. 932 which created the Metro Manila Authority and thereby transferred the power to suspend from the Secretary of Finance to the President of the Republic of the Philippines. The RTC reconsidered and set aside the previous ruling, this time, ruled in favor of Chang. Macalincag argues that the order took effect upon the receipt of Chang, which was on October 6, 1989, before the effectivity of EO No.392. On the other hand, Chang argues that the preventive suspension would only be implemented upon the happening of 2 conditions, 1) service of a copy of the order to the respondent and 2) designation of replacement. It is the latter’s argument which trial court curried favor on.
ISSUE:
Whether the Secretary of Finance has jurisdiction to issue an Order of Preventive Suspension against Chang?
HELD:
YES. The Supreme Court held that the trial court’s ruling is untenable given that the designation of a replacement is not required in implementing preventive suspension. The Order of Preventive Suspension took effect upon the receipt of Chang, hence, the applicability of EO No., 392 would be immaterial. The Office of the Municipal Treasurer is under the Department of Finance, hence, Macalincag has the power to suspend Chang.
Assuming arguendo that EO No. 932 was applicable, one only has to bring in my mind that department secretaries are alter egos of the President, making it still within the authority of the Macalincag as Secretary of Finance to preventively suspend Chang.
