FRANCISCO T. BACULI, PETITIONER, V. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, RESPONDENT.

G.R. No. 188681

THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, AND THE REGIONAL

FACTS:
On July 16, 1988, the petitioner was appointed as Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO) II of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) - Cagayan by then President
Corazon C. Aquino. In 1991, acting in his capacity as PARO II, he entered into several
contracts with various suppliers for the lease of typewriters, computers, computer
printers, and other accessories. Separate reports from the DAR Commission on Audit
and the DAR Regional Investigating Committee of Cagayan, however, revealed that the
foregoing transactions were tainted with irregularities. He executed and approved
contracts of lease without the corresponding Certificate of Availability of Funds as
provided in Section 86 of Presidential Decree No. 1445, otherwise known as the Auditing
Code of the Philippines; and that there was no public bidding held for the purpose in
violation of the Commission on Audit Circular No. 85-55-A. A formal charge against the
petitioner for gross dishonesty, abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Simultaneous to the charge, the petitioner
was placed under preventive suspension for ninety (90) days pending the investigation of
the complaint. He was also required to submit his answer in writing and to state therein
whether or not he elects a formal investigation. his defense that he acted purely for the
benefit of the DAR Provincial Office. In support of his prayer for dismissal of the
complaint, he alleged that the formal charge issued by Secretary Garilao was null and
void because it was based on the report of the DAR Regional Investigating Committee, a
body bereft of authority to investigate administrative complaints against presidential
appointees like him pursuant to DAR Memorandum Order No. 5, Series of 1990. Thereafter,
acting on the formal charge, the DAR Legal Affairs Office conducted a formal
investigation on November 16, 17, and 18, 1992. On May 17, 1994, then DAR Assistant
Secretary for Legal Affairs Hector D. Soliman issued an order dismissing the petitioner
from the service. Secretary Garilao affirmed the said order on August 2, 1994. Civil Service
Commission affirmed the dismissal of petitioner. CA reversed the decision of the CSC
decision promulgated on August 31, 2000. On the strength of the foregoing decision, the
petitioner, through a letter dated January 9, 2001, requested from then DAR Secretary
Horacio Morales to issue an order of reinstatement in his favor. But, as thus appear on
record, he failed to be formally reinstated. Meanwhile, in line with this Court's decision,
succeeding DAR Secretary Hemani A. Braganza forwarded his findings and his
recommendation to dismiss the petitioner from the service, as well as records of the case,
to the Office of the President for proper disposition through a memorandum dated July 4,
2002. Armed with the decision of the Court of Appeals [promulgated on August 31,
2000], petitioner demanded from the DAR Secretary that he be reinstated. According to
the petitioner, he was not reinstated. The DAR Secretary forwarded his findings and
recommendations to the Office of the President on July 4, 2002.1 On June 26, 2003, the
Office of the President in its Order in OP Case No. 03-11-488, dismissed petitioner from the
service. For reference, the dismissal order of the Office of the President is being
referred to by petitioner as his "SECOND Dismissal". Petitioner sought recourse before
the court a quo for Mandamus to compel the DAR Secretary to pay his basic salaries, other
emoluments and benefits with legal rate of interest, covering the periods of August 2, 1994,
when the DAR Secretary dismissed him from service, to June 25, 2003, a day before the
Office of the President rendered its decision declaring him dismissed from the service.
CA granted backwages.

ISSUES:
G.R. No. 188681: Whether or not the order of dismissal issued by the Acting Deputy
Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs was valid;

G.R. No. 201130: Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the findings of the RTC, and in
granting the petition for mandamus

HELD:
Dismissal by Sec. Garilao was void. charges against Baculi for gross dishonesty, abuse of
authority, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
based on the reports issued by the Regional Investigating Committee of the DAR (DAR-
RIC) and the Commission on Audit (COA) about having violated Presidential Decree No.
1445 (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines) as well as relevant DAR rules and
regulations. He was immediately placed under preventive suspension for 90 days (i.e.,
from September 4 to December 3, 1992) as a consequence. Section 38(a) of Presidential
Decree No. 807 (Civil Service Decree), as follows:
Section 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 or agencies, regional directors, or upon sworn, written complaint of
any other persons.

xxxx
Section 38(a) of Presidential Decree No. 807 has drawn a definite distinction between
subordinate officers or employees who were presidential appointees, on the one hand,
and subordinate officers or employees who were non-presidential appointees, on the
other. Without a doubt, substantial distinctions that set apart presidential appointees
from nonpresidential appointees truly existed. For one, presidential appointees come
under the direct disciplining authority of the President pursuant to the well-settled
principle that, in the absence of a contrary law, the power to remove or to discipline is
lodged in the same authority in whom the power to appoint is vested. Having the power
to remove or to discipline presidential appointees, therefore, the President has the
corollary authority to investigate them and look into their conduct in office. Thus, Baculi, as
a presidential appointee, came under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the President in
line with the principle that the "power to remove is inherent in the power to appoint." As
such, the DAR Secretary held no disciplinary jurisdiction over him. Verily, Presidential
Decree No. 807 has expressly specified the procedure for disciplinary actions involving
presidential appointees