Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > April 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T. PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-15471. April 29, 1966.]

BENJAMIN T. PONCE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. HEADQUARTERS, PHILIPPINE ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD, Respondent-Appellant.

Solicitor General for the respondent and Appellant.

Jose M. Luison for the petitioner and appellee.


SYLLABUS


1. RESERVE OFFICERS; POWER OF PRESIDENT TO DISCHARGE RESERVE OFFICERS AT ANYTIME. — Petitioner contends that Section 22 (f) of Commonwealth Act No. 1, insofar as it empowered the President to discharge any reserve officer at anytime at his discretion, has been repealed by Republic Act No. 1382, Section 1 of which provides that reserve officers with at least ten years of active service, like himself, may be discharged only for cause after proper court martial proceedings or upon their own request. This question has been settled in the case of Constante V. Alzate v. General Headquarters Efficiency and Separation Board AFP, G. R. No. L-16572, February 27, 1965, where this Court held that section 1 of Republic Act No. 1382 refers to reversion of reserve officers to inactive status and not to their separation or discharge from the service, which is the subject-matter of section 22(f) of Commonwealth Act No. 1. Petitioner’s interpretation would place reserve officers in a higher category than regular officers, for while regular officers are subject to discharge under Republic Act No. 291 and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Executive Order No. 302, yet reserve officers could be discharged or separated only after court martial proceedings and for cause.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Benjamin T. Ponce, petitioner below and appellee here, is a reserve officer in the armed forces. He has been in the active service since 1939 and in 1958 had the rank of Major. On October 21, of that year he received a communication from the Chief of Staff to appear at a hearing to be conducted by respondent (Headquarters, Philippine Army, Efficiency and Separation Board) on November 10, 1958 for the purpose of determining "the mode and character of your separation or retirement as the case may be in the AFP pursuant to Ex. O. No. 302cs and Cir. 7 GHO as for having been deferred twice which is known as officers passed over for the second time in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 (F) and 7 (F) of R.A. No. 291."cralaw virtua1aw library

On November 13, 1958 Ponce filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for a writ of prohibition to stop respondent from proceeding with its investigation for the purpose aforestated, and for a declaration that Executive Order No. 302 dated May 5, 1958 and Circular No. 7 GHQ AFP, dated August 29, 1958, were null and void as violative of Republic Act No. 1382. As prayed for in the petition a writ of preliminary injunction was issued by the lower court; and after trial judgment was rendered for petitioner, declaring among other things that respondent was without jurisdiction, power or authority to investigate and separate him from the active service of the armed forces. The case is now before Us on appeal by respondent, represented by the Solicitor General.

Under Section 22 (f) of the National Defense Act (Commonwealth Act No. 1) "any reserve officer may, in the discretion of the President, be discharged at any time."cralaw virtua1aw library

With respect to officers in .the regular force, separation from the active service is governed by Republic Act No. 291, which took effect on June 18, 1948. Section 7 (f) of this Act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Deferred officers in any grade shall be considered a second time by the next selection board designated for consideration of officers of his grade and promotion list. If an officer fails of selection for any grade but is subsequently recommended and promoted to that grade, his failure in the grade from which promoted shall not in any sense be counted as a failure of selection when he is subsequently considered for further promotion. If a deferred officer is not recommended by the consecutive selection board, he shall be eliminated from the active list of the Regular Force and separated under the provisions of section twenty-two (g) of the National Defense Act, as amended, or any other law which may hereafter be provided for such purpose."cralaw virtua1aw library

On July 24, 1957 the President issued Executive Order No. 260, which adopted the procedure laid down in Republic Act No. 291, section 7 (f), and made it applicable in respect of the separation of reserve officers from the active service. And on March 5, 1958, the President issued Executive Order No. 302 creating an Efficiency and Separation Board for each of the four major services in the armed forces. Said Board is the administrative agency which inquires into the efficiency of an officer who has been by-passed twice in the promotion of officers, and makes the corresponding recommendation in each case.

Petitioner was one of those who had been by-passed twice when respondent issued the call for investigation to him. His discharge, if it should result at all after such investigation, would be by virtue of the authority of the President under Section 22 (f) of Commonwealth Act No. 1, although after going through the procedure laid down in section 7 (f) of Republic Act No. 291, made applicable to reserve officers by Executive Order No. 260.

In questioning the authority of respondent to proceed against him petitioner contends that Section 22 (f) of Commonwealth Act No. 1, insofar as it empowered the President to discharge any reserve officer at anytime at his discretion, has been repealed by Republic Act No. 1382, which became effective on June 18, 1955. Section 1 of that Act provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Reserve Officers with at least ten years of active accumulated commissioned service who are still on active duty at the time of the approval of this Act shall not be reverted into inactive status except for cause after proper court martial proceedings or upon their own request: Provided, That for purposes of computing the length of service, six months or more of active service shall be considered one year."cralaw virtua1aw library

It is petitioner’s contention that under this subsequent law reserve officers with at least ten years of active service like himself may be discharged only for cause after proper court martial proceedings or upon their own request. Admittedly the investigation to be conducted by respondent Board was not a court martial proceeding.

The question presented here is not one of first impression. We have settled it in the case of Constante V. Alzate v. General Headquarters Efficiency and Separation Board AFP, G. R. No. L-16572, February 27, 1965, where we held that section 1 of Republic Act No. 1382 refers to reversion of reserve officers to inactive status and not to their separation or discharge from the service, which is the subject-matter of section 22 (f) of Commonwealth Act No. 1. We quoted with approval the distinction between reversion and discharge as stated in De la Paz v. Alcaraz, Et Al., 99 Phil., 130; 52 Off. Gaz. p. 3039, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

". . . appellant’s reversion to inactive status in the reserve force is not, as he claims a dismissal from the service. Although he had ceased to be in the active service of the Philippine Navy, appellant remains nevertheless an officer of the Army reserve force. Officers in the naval reserve may be transferred from active to inactive service as the army authorities may see fit (cf 6 C. J. S. 17, citing Denby v. Berry, 44 S. Ct. 74, 263 U.S. 29, 68 L. Ed. 148), and appellant can not rightly complain that he had been dismissed or discharged without due process because mere transfer from active to inactive service in the army is neither dismissal or discharge."cralaw virtua1aw library

Considering the distinction just stated, there is no justification for extending the scope of application of section 1, Republic Act No. 1382, beyond what it specifically covers, namely, reversion to inactive status of reserve officers with at least ten years active service, so as to include their discharge. If there is any seeming lack of logic in the result, in that while reserve officers may not be reverted without court martial proceedings and for cause, except upon their own request, yet they may be discharged summarily by the President under section 22 (f) of the National Defense Act, the remedy lies in Congress, not in the courts. Indeed petitioner’s interpretation would itself be illogical in result, because it would place reserve officers in a higher category than regular officers, for while regular officers are subject to discharge under Republic Act No. 291 and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Executive Order No. 302, which provides that "the several Efficiency and Separation Boards shall annually review the personal records and efficiency of all officers . . . and recommend for discharge or separation those whose qualifications are unsatisfactory," yet reserve officers could be discharged or separated only after court martial proceedings and for cause. We do not believe such result was intended by Congress.

Wherefore the decision appealed from is reversed and the petition for prohibition is dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.




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






April-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-21752 April 25, 1966 SIMEON HIDALGO v. LA TONDEÑA, INC., ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 377 April 29, 1966 CONCEPCION BOLIVAR v. ABELARDO M. SIMBOL

  • G.R. No. L-15471 April 29, 1966 BENJAMIN T. PONCE v. HQTRS., PHIL. ARMY EFFICIENCY AND SEPARATION BOARD

  • G.R. No. L-18067 April 29, 1966 PEDRO F. NACIONALES v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-18570 April 29, 1966 BARTOLOME GUIRAO v. EVARISTO VER

  • G.R. No. L-19161 April 29, 1966 MLA. RAILROAD CO. v. MACARIA BALLESTEROS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19327 April 29, 1966 AMADO BELLA JARO v. ELPIDIO VALENCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19558 April 29, 1966 LA MALLORCA, ET AL. v. CIRILO D. MENDIOLA

  • G.R. No. L-19576 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19609 April 29, 1966 JOSE NEGRE v. CABAHUG SHIPPING & CO.

  • G.R. No. L-19645 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARIA (MARUJA) P. VDA. DE YULO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19647 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENEDICTO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20480 April 29, 1966 CLARA SALAZAR, ET AL. v. FILEMON Q. ORTIZANO

  • G.R. No. L-20709 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANDRONICO AUGUSTO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20710 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEREGRINA TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21072 April 29, 1966 BRUNO TORRALBA, ET AL. v. ZACARIAS ROSALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21194 April 29, 1966 HAW LIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21285 April 29, 1966 MANUFACTURER’S DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. YU SIU LIONG

  • G.R. No. L-21321 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

  • G.R. No. L-19581 April 29, 1966 IN RE: SUSANO SY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19847 April 29, 1966 IN RE: GUADALUPE UY SIOCO NACAGUE TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-19502 April 29, 1966 IN RE: PEDRO CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21907 April 29, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INS. CO., ET AL. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21457 and L-21461 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-23082 April 29, 1966 PAFLU v. DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21778 April 29, 1966 IN RE: CHAN PENG HIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21895 April 29, 1966 IN RE: AGUEDA GO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21762 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEON C. SO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21078 April 29, 1966 IN RE: ANTONIO L. CO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20715 April 29, 1966 IN RE: WAYNE CHANG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20510 April 29, 1966 FELICIDAD TOLENTINO v. EULOGIA BIGORNIA CARDENAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20397 April 29, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE MAGLANOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20188 April 29, 1966 PETER C. SANTOS v. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20159 April 29, 1966 MIGUEL GERMANO, ET AL. v. ERENEO SURITA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20016 April 29, 1966 IN RE: EMMANUEL YU NAM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21446 April 29, 1966 IN RE: LEE TIT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21452 April 29, 1966 IN RE: BENITO KO BOK v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21477-81 April 29, 1966 FRANCISCA VILUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21493-94 April 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO G. CAINGLET

  • G.R. No. L-21516 April 29, 1966 BUTUAN SAWMILL, INC. v. CITY OF BUTUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21555 April 29, 1966 DOROTEA BALMEO v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21593 April 29, 1966 RAYMUNDA S. DIGRAN v. AUDITOR GENERAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21695 April 29, 1966 ILDEFONSO AGREDA, ET AL. v. JESUS S. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21812 April 29, 1966 PAZ TORRES DE CONEJERO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22117 April 29, 1966 PAMPANGA SUGAR DEV. CO., INC. v. DONATO QUIROZ

  • G.R. No. L-22120 April 29, 1966 ILUMINADO MOTUS, ET AL. v. CFI OF RIZAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22220 April 29, 1966 A. D. SANTOS, INC. v. CONCHITA VDA. DE SAPON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22454 April 29, 1966 FIREMAN’S FUND INS. CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22594 April 29, 1966 CECILIA RAPADAZ VDA. DE RAPISURA v. NICANOR NICOLAS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 241 April 30, 1966 REBECCA M. MIRANDA v. FRANCISCO FUENTES

  • G.R. No. L-16969 April 30, 1966 R. MARINO CORPUS v. MIGUEL CUADERNO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-17037 April 30, 1966 EAST ASIATIC CO., LTD., ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18032 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GORGONIO SERDEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-18308 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS TARUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-15823-26 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALBAL SIGAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18867 April 30, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. CESARIO OCTOBRE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19397 April 30, 1966 TEODORA MATIAS DE BUENCAMINO, ET AL. v. MARIA DIZON DE MATIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19613 April 30, 1966 ALFONSO G. LOPEZ v. FILIPINAS COMPANIA DE SEGUROS

  • G.R. No. L-19869 April 30, 1966 PATRICIO M. MIGUEL v. JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20018 April 30, 1966 CHIU HAP CHIU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20155 April 30, 1966 LEXAL PURE DRUG LAB. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20687 April 30, 1966 MAXIMINO VALDEPENAS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20721 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARTIN ALAGAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21034 April 30, 1966 IN RE: THOMAS FALLON v. EMILIO CAMON

  • G.R. No. L-21139 April 30, 1966 CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21440 April 30, 1966 SUN BROS. APPLIANCES, INC. v. ANGEL AL. CALUNTAD

  • G.R. No. L-21460 April 30, 1966 AMERICAN MACHINERY & PARTS MANUFACTURING CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21471 April 30, 1966 VICENTE S. DY REYES, ET AL. v. FRUCTUOSO ORTEGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20875 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21623 April 30, 1966 RIZAL SURETY & INS. CO. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21760 April 30, 1966 SWITZERLAND GEN. INS. CO., LTD. v. JAVA PACIFIC & HOEGH LINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21685 April 30, 1966 CLETO ASPREC v. VICTORIANO ITCHON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21693 April 30, 1966 PROCOPIO F. ELEAZAR v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-21810 April 30, 1966 ARMANDO ESPERANZA v. ANDRES CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-22085 April 30, 1966 IN RE: SEGUNDA VDA. DE GAMIR, ET AL. v. THELMA G. SAWAMOTO

  • G.R. No. L-22143 April 30, 1966 LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS CO. v. ANTONIO TIONGSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22192 April 30, 1966 IN RE: VIRGILIO LIM TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22210 April 30, 1966 PILAR T. DEL ROSARIO, ET AL. v. DAMIAN L. JIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22305 April 30, 1966 PRAXEDES GABRIEL, ET AL. v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23294 April 30, 1966 NAMARCO EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS ASS’N. v. EMILIANO TABIGNE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23812 April 30, 1966 PRIMO T. OCAMPO, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DUQUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21191 April 30, 1966 EVERETT STEAMSHIP CORP. v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEDINA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20022 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GLICERIO SALVACION

  • G.R. No. L-20905 April 30, 1966 MARTA A. VDA. DE CUIZON v. EMILIANO ORTIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-20028 & L-20029 April 30, 1966 GREGORIO ATIENZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18514 April 30, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO TANIA, ET AL.