Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1961 > February 1961 Decisions > G.R. No. L-13264 February 28, 1961 - PABLO CUNETA, ETC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL. :




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-13264. February 28, 1961.]

PABLO CUNETA, ETC., ET AL., Petitioners, v. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., Respondents.

Francisco G. H. Salva (City Attorney of Pasay City), for Petitioners.

Isagani Manuel for Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. PUBLIC OFFICER; ABOLITION OF POSITIONS OF DETECTIVES UNDER REORGANIZATION PLAN; REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEES IN THE CLASSIFIED CLASS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE. — Appellees were detectives in Pasay City. As part of the regular police force they belonged to the unclassified class of the civil service, and, hence, could not be removed without any formal charge against them and without being given an opportunity to defend themselves. The reorganization plan adopted by the city mayor in line with the authority given to him to reorganize the government by the municipal board, wherein appellees’ positions were abolished has no valid effect, because the plan was never submitted to the President for approval, as required by Executive Order No. 175, series of 1939. This void could not be obviated by the fact that the budget corresponding to said plan was approved by the Office of the President since such approval cannot imply an express presidential sanction of the over-all reorganization plan.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


On February 1, 1956, the Municipal Board of Pasay City approved Resolution No. 36 empowering the city mayor to reorganize the various departments and offices of the city government to accomplish efficiency and economy, and to promote, transfer, demote or lay off, as a consequence thereof, city officials and employees, pursuant to existing civil service law and regulations. To implement said resolution the city mayor prepared what is now known as Reorganization Plan No. 5 for the police department, which was subsequently submitted to and approved by the municipal board on March 22 of the same year. This reorganization plan reduced from 92 to 12 the number of detectives in the aforesaid department.

Upon approval by the municipal board of said reorganization plan, the city mayor, under date of March 25, 1956, sent a communication to the chief of police directing the latter to screen the list of detectives and select the 12 who should be reappointed and retained in the service. Accordingly, the selection was made and the recommendation submitted.

Appellees herein were among those not recommended for reappointment. They were notified of their separation from the service effective as of the close of office hours of April 25, 1956, without prejudice to their reappointment should appropriate funds be available. The city treasurer and city auditor, upon being furnished with copies of the notice served upon appellees, refused to pay and pass in audit their salaries after April 25, 1956.

On June 6, 1956, appellees filed before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay Branch, a mandamus proceeding to command the respondent city mayor to reinstate them to their former rank and positions; to command the city mayor, city treasurer and city auditor to pay their salaries accruing from the time they were illegally removed from their office until they are actually reinstated in the service, and to declare their removal from their rank and positions as illegal.

After trial the lower court found appellees’ separation from the service illegal and rendered judgment against appellants. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment was affirmed. Appellants come before this Court assigning as errors the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.

The issues raised by appellants in their assignments of error may be boiled down as follows: that their original petition does not state a cause of action; that it does not dispute the validity of Resolution No. 36 which authorizes the reorganization of the various departments and offices of the government of Pasay City; that Reorganization Plan No. 5 approved by the municipal board of said city to implement said resolution is valid; that appellees had been legally separated because their positions had been properly eliminated either in said plan or in the budget submitted in connection therewith.

There is no merit in this appeal. We find that, under the law and precedents on the matter, appellees were improperly eliminated, and, hence, are entitled to reinstatement.

It should be noted that appellees at the time of their removal were holding the positions of detectives who performed the duties of peace officers and such other duties as may be assigned to them by the chief of police, or as may be prescribed by law or ordinance. As part of the regular police force, they belonged to the unclassified class of the civil service, and in view of the nature of their office, their removal can only be accomplished in accordance with law, particularly paragraph 2, section 20, article IV, Republic. Act No. 183, which provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"All other officers and employees of the city whose appointment is not otherwise provided for by law shall be appointed by the Mayor upon the recommendation of the corresponding city department head in accordance with the Civil Service Law, and they shall be suspended or removed in accordance with said law."cralaw virtua1aw library

Our Constitution also protect their tenure of office when it postulates that "No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law" (Section 4, Article XII). And the mode and manner by which they may be suspended or removed from office are also prescribed in the law, particularly section 1, Republic Act No. 557, which in part provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"SECTION 1. Members of the provincial guards, city police and municipal police shall not be removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be discharged except for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Philippine Government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and violation of law or duty, and in such cases, charges shall be preferred by the provincial governor in matters against any member of the provincial guards, the city mayor in cases against a member of the city police, and the municipal mayor in cases involving a member of the municipal police, and investigated by the provincial board, the city or municipal council, as the case may be, in public hearing, and the accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense. . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

Since appellees were removed from office in disregard of the safeguard prescribed by law for they were separated without any formal charge having been filed against them and, if any, without having been given an opportunity to defend themselves, it is clear that their petition sets forth a good cause of action.

It is true that the positions which appellees were holding were eliminated from the reorganization plan adopted by the city mayor in line with the authority given him to reorganize the government by the municipal board, but said plan has no valid effect because it was never submitted to the President for approval as required by Executive Order No. 175 series of 1938. 1 Nor can this void be obviated by the fact that the budget corresponding to said plan was approved by the office of the President since such approval cannot imply an express presidential sanction of the overall reorganization plan. We concur in the following comment of the Court of Appeals:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"We find no merit in this contention. A public office should not be deemed abolished by mere implication. In other words, by the mere approval by the office of the President of the budget of Pasay City, which was approved by the Municipal Board on June 25, 1956, it should not be assumed that the President had also given his express approval to the Reorganization Plan No. 5 which does not appear to have ever been submitted for his consideration."cralaw virtua1aw library

WHEREFORE, we affirm the decision appealed from, with out pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

Concepcion, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. "No position in any city or municipal police force or in the provincial guards should be abolished nor may the salary corresponding thereto reduced without the approval of the President of the Philippines."




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






February-1961 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-18188 February 13, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAFAEL LACSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10774 February 16, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR CASTELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13236 February 16, 1961 - INSURANCE COMMISSIONER v. GLOBE ASSURANCE CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-13337 February 16, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JAMES DAVIS

  • G.R. No. L-15309 February 16, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALINA CASIANO

  • G.R. No. L-16118 February 16, 1961 - DELFIN MERCADER v. FRANCISCO VALILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14314 February 22, 1961 - AGATON MATEO v. GREGORIO DURAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15637 February 22, 1961 - TEOFILO SISON v. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-10563 February 23, 1961 - CO SAN v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11156 February 23, 1961 - PURA CARREON, ET AL. v. RUFO AGCAOILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12961 February 23, 1961 - MAXIMO VERGARA, ET AL. v. GETULIO BRUCELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16275 February 23, 1961 - PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS SYSTEM v. PAN AMERICAN EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION

  • G.R. No. L-12323 February 24, 1961 - QUINTIN RIVERA, ET AL. v. CIPRIANO B. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12873 February 24, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. POTENCIANO MATONDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14078 February 24, 1961 - MINDANAO BUS COMPANY v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-13276 February 25, 1961 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16135 February 25, 1961 - NAPOLEON R. MALOLOS v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12429 February 27, 1961 - ERMIDIA A. MARIANO v. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13971 February 27, 1961 - CARLOS MAÑACOP, JR. v. FAUSTINO CANSINO

  • G.R. No. L-14517 February 27, 1961 - SANDRA K. SHAOUY v. PHILIP E. SHAOUY

  • G.R. Nos. L-14785 and L-14923 February 27, 1961 - FELIX ABE, ET AL. v. FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14956 February 27, 1961 - TEOFILO ARCEL, ET AL. v. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15043 February 27, 1961 - JUANITO FLORIZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-16874 February 27, 1961 - DIOSDADO S. MENDIOLA, ET AL. v. HIGINO MACADAEG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10305 February 28, 1961 - LEE BOG & COMPANY v. HANOVER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10725 February 28, 1961 - ROBERT L. JANDA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-10765 February 28, 1961 - JOSE PANTOJA v. SATURNINO DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-10801 February 28, 1961 - MARIANO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. PORFIRIO BELGICA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11553 February 28, 1961 - DEMETRIA MERCADO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12001 February 28, 1961 - JESUS LIM CHING TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-12103 February 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTA MALAYAO

  • G.R. No. L-12218 February 28, 1961 - MARIA PATERNO, ET AL. v. JAO YAN

  • G.R. No. L-12554 February 28, 1961 - C. N. HODGES v. MATIAS C. REY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-12710 February 28, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ELLEN WOOD McGRATH

  • G.R. No. L-12792 February 28, 1961 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LA ORDEN DE PP. BENEDICTINOS DE FILIPINAS

  • G.R. No. L-12954 and L-13049 February 28, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. ARTHUR HENDERSON

  • G.R. No. L-13264 February 28, 1961 - PABLO CUNETA, ETC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13554 February 28, 1961 - COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. UNIVERSITY OF THE VISAYAS

  • G.R. Nos. L-14626-27 February 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOROS AMAJUL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14778 February 28, 1961 - MARGARITA MANZANO, ET AL. v. RUFINO OCAMPO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-15632 February 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LUIS ARCHILLA

  • G.R. No. L-15805 February 28, 1961 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS VERANO