Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1955 > May 1955 Decisions > G.R. No. L-7926 May 21, 1955 - OSCAR OLEGARIO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

097 Phil 75:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-7926. May 21, 1955.]

OSCAR OLEGARIO, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ARSENIO H. LACSON, Mayor of the City of Manila, Respondent-Appellant.

De Santos, Herrera & Delfino for Appellee.

City Fiscal Eugenio Angeles and Assistant City Fiscal Eulogio S. Serrano for Appellant.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC OFFICERS; REMOVAL; DETECTIVES OR SECRET SERVICE AGENTS. — Executive Order No. 264, series of 1940, has been repealed by Republic Act 557 in so far as it may be in conflict with the latter, and that permanent detectives or secret service agents may now be removed only as provided by said Act.

2. ID.; DISMISSAL; DETECTIVE’S APPOINTMENT WHEN NOT TEMPORARY. — Unless it is shown that a detective’s appointment is temporary, he may not be dismissed except in accordance with Republic Act No. 557.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


This appeal is taken by the Mayor of the City of Manila from a decision of the Court of First Instance in its case No. 17153, for mandamus, wherein the Court orders the reinstatement to service of detective Oscar Olegario, dismissed by the Mayor for lack of confidence on July 19, 1952. The lower Court held that the dismissal was illegal, for lack of the investigation and hearing provided for by Republic Act No. 557.

It is contended for the appellant Mayor that (1) the position of detective in the Manila Police Department is confidential in nature, having been so declared by Executive Order No. 264, Series of 1940, and that Republic Act 557 did not repeal or affect said Executive Order; and (2) that appellee Oscar Olegario not being a Civil Service eligible, his appointment, in 1947, should be viewed as merely temporary under sec. 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, and, therefore, he was subject to summary dismissal at the expiration of three months.

The first issue tendered by the appellant has been thoroughly considered and resolved in previous decisions of this Court. In Mission v. Del Rosario (94 Phil., 483), this Court held that Executive Order No. 264, Series of 1940, upon which appellant now relies, has been repealed by Rep. Act 557, in so far as it may be in conflict with the latter, and that detectives or secret service agents may now be removed only as provided in said Act. This ruling was applied to similar offices in other localities (Abella v. Rodriguez, 95 Phil., 289; Palamine v. Zagado, 94 Phil., 494), and we see no reason for not upholding it with respect to detectives or secret service agents of the Manila Police Department.

With regard to the appellee’s lack of civil service qualifications, it is to be remarked that such lack does not necessarily mean that his appointment was temporary in character, considering that when appellee was appointed, Executive Order No. 264 was as yet in force, and under its terms, positions of secret agent or detective were excepted from civil service requirements. The records of the case at bar, in fact, show that appellee Olegario’s appointment was not temporary in character (Exhs. E to H).

We have held in Uy v. Rodriguez, 95 Phil., 490, that unless it is shown that a detective’s appointment was temporary, he may not be dismissed except in accordance with Rep. Act No. 557, and that ruling is decisive of this case.

"The question raised in this special civil action has already been decided squarely by us in the cases of Palarmine, Et. Al. v. Zapada, Et Al., G. R. No. L-6901, promulgated March 15, 1954; Mission, Et Al., v. Del Rosario No. L-6754, promulgated February 25, 1954; and Abella v. Rodriguez, G. R. No. L-6867, promulgated June 29, 1954. In said cases, we have held that a member of the detective force of Cebu City is a member of the police department of said city and may not be removed except in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 557.

The statement submitted by the petitioner shows that he is not a civil service eligible, but neither does it appear from the record that his appointment as member of the detective force was temporary in character or for periods of three months merely, and that he had been reappointed every three months until his separation. These circumstances, in addition to the fact that he was promoted as senior detective inspector, show that his appointment is not in a temporary capacity. He may not therefore, be dismissed or removed except in accordance with the provisions of existing law."cralaw virtua1aw library

The difference between the present case and those involved in Orais v. Ribo, 1 49 Off. Gaz. (12) 5386; Paña v. Medina, 2 50 Off. Gaz. (1) 146, and Manigbas v. De Guzman, 3 G.R. No. L-6137, invoked by appellant, lies in that the present appellee was not appointed under sec. 682 of the Administrative Code, but under the exceptional provisions of Executive Order No. 264, and Commonwealth Act No. 698, and Commonwealth Act No. 698, in force before Republic Act 557 was enacted. Hence, said section 682 is inapplicable to him. The repeal of C. A. 698 by Republic Act 271 after he was appointed, could not retract to the prejudice of the appellee.

As to the allegation that appellee’s appointment was improper because he had not qualified under examinations of the police Merit and Trial Board, the presumption of regularity has not been overcome; and the fact that the Administrative Officer of the Board is the one who attested his various promotions (Exhs. F and G) is strong evidence that he possessed the requisite qualifications.

The decision appealed from is affirmed, with costs against the Appellant.

Pablo, Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador and Concepcion, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. 93 Phil., 895.

2. 94 Phil., 103.

3. 94 Phil., 254.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com





May-1955 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-7331 May 6, 1955 - CLEMENTE PASILAN v. FRANCISCO VILLAGONZA

    097 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. L-7616 May 10, 1955 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTORIO HERNANDEZ

    097 Phil 3

  • G.R. No. L-7684 May 10, 1955 - AGRIPINO JOCSON v. ESPERIDION PRESBITERIO

    097 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. L-7516 May 12, 1955 - LEONOR P. REYES v. THE HONORABLE BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 11

  • G.R. No. L-8045 May 12, 1955 - VALENTINO TAYLO Y REYES v. TRIBUNAL DE APELACIONES

    097 Phil 16

  • G.R. No. L-6963 May 13, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS PADIOS and FILEMON PADIOS

    097 Phil 19

  • G.R. No. L-7574 May 17, 1955 - FRANCISCO EPANG v. MARIA ORTIN DE LEYCO

    097 Phil 24

  • G.R. No. L-7862 May 17, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HON. MAXIMO ABAÑO

    097 Phil 28

  • G.R. No. L-7894 May 17, 1955 - FERNANDO NIETO v. HON. BONIFACIO YSIP

    097 Phil 31

  • G.R. No. L-8276 May 17, 1955 - JOSE B. GAMBOA v. HON. JOSE TEODORO

    097 Phil 34

  • G.R. No. L-7937 May 18, 1955 - JUANITA RONQUILLO v. RAFAEL AMPARO

    097 Phil 38

  • G.R. No. L-7083 May 19, 1955 - JUAN EUGENIO ET AL. v. SILVINA PERDIDO

    097 Phil 41

  • G.R. No. L-7307 May 19, 1955 - PACITA ORTIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

    097 Phil 46

  • G.R. No. L-7385 May 19, 1955 - QUIRICO L. SATURNINO v. FELIZA LUZ PAULINO

    097 Phil 50

  • G.R. No. L-6776 May 21, 1955 - REGISTER OF DEEDS OF RIZAL v. UNG SIU SI TEMPLE

    097 Phil 58

  • G.R. No. L-7112 May 21, 1955 - TOMAS Q. SORIANO v. F. R. OMILA

    097 Phil 62

  • G.R. No. L-7234 May 21, 1955 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAZ M. DEL ROSARIO

    097 Phil 67

  • G.R. No. L-7595 May 21, 1955 - TEODORA DEMORAR v. HON. JUDGE ROMAN IBAÑEZ ET AL.

    097 Phil 72

  • G.R. No. L-7926 May 21, 1955 - OSCAR OLEGARIO v. ARSENIO H. LACSON

    097 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. L-7583 May 25, 1955 - JAMIE T. BUENAFLOR ET AL. v. CESARIO DE LEON

    097 Phil 78

  • G.R. No. L-7918 May 25, 1955 - MARIA GALASINAO v. ROSA M. AUSTRIA ET AL.

    097 Phil 82

  • G.R. No. L-8114 May 25, 1955 - HAWAIIAN-PHIL. CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMM., ET AL.

    097 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. L-8238 May 25, 1955 - CESAR M. CARANDANG v. VICENTE SANTIAGO

    097 Phil 94

  • G.R. No. L-8806 May 25, 1955 - MARIA N. BANZON v. PEDRO ALVIAR

    097 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. L-6869 May 27, 1955 - SOLEDAD BELANDRES v. LOPEZ SUGAR CENTRAL MILL CO., INC.

    097 Phil 100

  • G.R. No. L-7224 May 27, 1955 - RAYMUNDO TRANSPORTATION CO. v. A. GERGARAY TANCHINGCO

    097 Phil 105

  • G.R. No. L-7383 May 27, 1955 - XERXES G. GARCIA v. DAMIANA SANTICO

    097 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. L-7518 May 27, 1955 - ATOK-BIG WEDGE MINING CO., INC. v. HON. MODESTO CASTILLO ET AL.

    097 Phil 110

  • G.R. No. L-7622 May 27, 1955 - GABRIEL MACLAN v. RUBEN GARCIA

    097 Phil 119

  • G.R. No. L-7752 May 27, 1955 - SEC. OF AGRI. AND NAT. RESOURCES, ET AL. v. HON. JUDGE, CFI OF MLA., ET AL.

    097 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. L-7248 May 28, 1955 - AMADO BERNARDO v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 131

  • G.R. No. L-8040 May 28, 1955 - VICENTE K. LAY v. ROCES HERMANOS INC., ET AL.

    097 Phil 140

  • G.R. No. L-7708 May 30, 1955 - JOSE MONDANO v. FERNANDO SILVOSA, ET AL.

    097 Phil 143

  • G.R. No. L-7738 May 30, 1955 - BALDOMERO TACAD, ET AL. v. POTENCIANA VDA. DE CEBRERO

    097 Phil 150

  • G.R. No. L-7959 May 30, 1955 - PRICE STABILIZATION CORP., v. JUDGE OF CFI, ET AL.

    097 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. L-6707 May 31, 1955 - R. F. & J. ALEXANDER & CO., LTD., ET AL. v. JOSE ANG, ET AL.

    097 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. L-7019 May 31, 1955 - IN RE: EULOGIO S. EUSEBIO v. DOMINGO VALMORES

    097 Phil 163

  • G.R. No. L-7144 May 31, 1955 - FAR EASTERN EXPORT & IMPORT CO. v. LIM TECK SUAN

    097 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. L-7338 May 31, 1955 - PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC., v. PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS ASSN.

    097 Phil 178

  • G.R. No. L-7358 May 31, 1955 - NATIONAL LABOR UNION v. AGUINALDO’S ECHAGUE, INC.

    097 Phil 184

  • G.R. No. L-7376 May 31, 1955 - FRANCISCO MARIANO v. APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 191

  • G.R. No. L-7614 May 31, 1955 - CONRADO POTENCIANO v. NAPOLEON DINEROS, ET AL.

    097 Phil 196

  • G.R. Nos. L-7771-73 May 31, 1955 - PHIL. MOVIE PICTURES WORKERS’ ASSN. v. PREMIERE PRODUCTIONS, INC.

    097 Phil 200

  • G.R. No. L-7887 May 31, 1955 - MACLEOD & CO. OF THE PHIL. v. PROGRESSIVE FEDERATION OF LABOR

    097 Phil 205