Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1974 > November 1974 Decisions > G.R. No. L-31444 November 13, 1974 - JOSE CANTILLO v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-31444. November 13, 1974.]

JOSE CANTILLO, Petitioner, v. HON. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, Branch II, THE MUNICIPALITY OF MARAMAG, PROVINCE OF BUKIDNON; THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MARAMAG, CONRADO MICAYABAS, in his capacity as THE MUNICIPAL MAYOR, MARAMAG, BUKIDNON, TORIBIO BALISTOY, in his capacity as THE VICE-MAYOR, MARAMAG, BUKIDNON and PEDRO ORMILLADA, in his capacity as THE MUNICIPAL TREASURER, MARAMAG, BUKIDNON, Respondents.

Loreto G. Tumanpos for Petitioner.

Provincial Fiscal Eulalio D. Rosete and Special Counsel Jesus M. Barroso, Jr. for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon (Br. II) in its Civil Case No. 430 dismissing the petition for mandamus filed by herein petitioner-appellant Jose Cantillo to compel the Mayor and Council of the municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon, to pay him back salaries during the period of his suspension from the police force of said municipality.

The material facts are partially stipulated as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"x       x       x

2. That on October 6, 1962, the petitioner was originally appointed Temporary Municipal Policeman of the municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon; that pursuant to said appointment petitioner took his oath of office as Temporary Municipal Policeman, and served as such, for the municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon;

3. That said appointment was attested to by the Provincial Treasurer of Bukidnon, and the Commissioner of Civil Service;

4. That on November 2, 1964, the petitioner was given another appointment as Municipal Policeman of the municipality of Maramag, Bukidnon, took his oath of office by virtue thereof, acted and qualified as such. The appointment of November 2, 1964 is ‘Provisional’ in nature; that said appointment of (November 2, 1964) was attested to as provisional by the Provincial Treasurer of Bukidnon, and the Commissioner of Civil Service;

5. That on January 20, 1967, petitioner was given another provisional appointment as Municipal Policeman of the municipality of Maramag, took his oath of office by virtue thereof, acted and qualified as such, the same to take effect on July 1, 1966. That provisional appointment was attested to by the Provincial Treasurer of Bukidnon, and the Commissioner of Civil Service;

6. That at the time of petitioner’s original appointment of October 6, 1962, petitioner was 41 years of age, he having been born on October 19, 1920; that at the time of petitioner’s appointment on October 6, 1962, he was and is still a second year high school;

7. That on October 16, 1967, petitioner was suspended from the service as such patrolman of the Police Force of Maramag, Bukidnon, because of the filing of a criminal case against him for Infidelity in the Custody of the Prisoner; that the petitioner was not arraigned in the above-entitled case;

8. That on November 26, 1968, the then Assistant Provincial Fiscal Arcadio D. Fabria moved for the provisional dismissal of the case against petitioner on the ground that the prosecution did not have sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt; that from the time of the dismissal up to now no more action has been taken against the petitioner;

9. That after the dismissal of the case against the petitioner he (petitioner) presented oral and written request for reinstatement to the service and also claimed for payment of his back salary corresponding to the time of his reinstatement and payment of his back salary turned down by respondent;

x       x       x"

On February 12, 1969, petitioner commenced the mandamus case below, demanding that respondent municipality be compelled to pay his back salaries during his period of suspension from October 16, 1967 to June 30, 1968, 1 basing his claim on section 4 of Republic Act No. 557, 2 which reads.

"SEC 4. When a member of the provincial guards, city police or municipal police is accused in court of any felony or violation of law by the provincial fiscal or city fiscal, as the case may be, the provincial governor, the city mayor or the municipal mayor shall immediately suspend the accused from office pending the final decision of the case by the court and, in case of acquittal the accused shall be entitled to payment of the entire salary he failed to receive during his suspension." (Emphasis supplied).

After appropriate proceedings the court a quo dismissed the petition on October 14, 1969. Hence this appeal.

The law in force when petitioner was extended his latest provisional appointment as municipal policeman on January 20, 1967 was Republic Act No. 4864, otherwise known as the Police Act of 1966. 3 Section 9 thereof enumerates the general qualifications for appointment to a local police agency, specifically requiring, inter alia, that the appointee be not less than twenty-three nor more than thirty-three years of age, and in the case of an appointment in a municipal police force, that the appointee must have at least completed high school. Considering that on October 6, 1962, when petitioner was first appointed as temporary municipal policeman, he was already 41 years old, he was at least 46, clearly 13 years over the maximum age qualification, when he was extended his latest provisional appointment as municipal policeman on January 20, 1967. His having studied only up to second year in high school, a couple of years short of the minimum educational requirement for the position to which he had been appointed, merely accentuates further his lack of the qualifications required by law.

The infirmity of petitioner’s appointment was not mere absence of civil service eligibility but of qualifications for the office. It affected therefore the very validity of such appointment, and precluded the reinstatement he claimed after he was suspended. During his tenure he was at best only a de facto officer and as such entitled to emoluments for actual services rendered. His provisional appointment did not render nugatory the requirements of Section 9 of the Police Act of 1966 so as to give color of validity to petitioner’s occupancy of the position. Thus, while Section 11 of the same Act authorized provisional appointments of policemen where no civil service eligibles are available therefor, it expressly required that "in case of a patrolman-appointee, he shall possess at least the general qualifications provided for in Section nine of this Act" in order that he could be appointed provisionally." (T)he tolerance, acquiescence or mistake of the proper officials, resulting in the non-observance of the pertinent rules on the matter, does not render the legal requirement (in this case the possession of the general qualifications for appointment to the local police agency), ineffective and unenforceable." 4

In view of what has been stated above, We deem it unnecessary to resolve the issue of whether or not the provisional dismissal of the criminal case filed against petitioner amounted to acquittal within the meaning of Section 4 of Rep. Act No. 557, as reenacted in Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 4864, concerning the payment of the salary during the period of suspension.

The decision appealed from is affirmed. No pronouncement as to costs.

Castro, Makasiar, Esguerra and Muñoz Palma, JJ., concur.

Teehankee, J., took no part.

Endnotes:



1. It appears that petitioner’s position in the police force of Maramag, Bukidnon had been abolished by the municipal council effective July 1, 1968. This accounts for petitioner’s voluntary desistance in pursuing his original additional plea for reinstatement.

2. Section 4 of Republic Act No. 557 was rephrased in the second paragraph of section 16 of Republic Act No. 4864, otherwise known as the Police Act of 1966, in this wise:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

x       x       x


When a member of the police force or agency is accused in court of any felony or violation of law by the city or municipal attorney or by the chief of the municipal police or the provincial or assistant provincial fiscal or city or assistant city fiscal, as the case may be, the city mayor or municipal mayor concerned, shall immediately suspend the accused from office pending the final decision of the court, and in case of acquittal, the accused shall be entitled to immediate reinstatement and the payment of the entire salary he failed to receive during his suspension; . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

3. Republic Act No. 4864 took effect on September 8, 1966.

4. Favis v. Rupisan, Et Al., 17 SCRA 190, 196; see: Ibañez v. Commission on Elections, 19 SCRA 1002.




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






November-1974 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-250 November 13, 1974 - FLORENCIO P. GUEVARRA v. ARMANDO P. POLINTAN, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 269-MJ November 13, 1974 - NARCISO P. BARBASO v. NICOMEDES A. CABASAG

  • A.M. No. 81-MJ November 13, 1974 - MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF CASIGURAN v. VIRGILIO Y. MORALES

  • G.R. No. L-19632 November 13, 1974 - PHILIPPINE AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. MANUEL MUTUC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29477 November 13, 1974 - HONORATA DE LUNA v. UNION C. KAYANAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31444 November 13, 1974 - JOSE CANTILLO v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-32799 November 13, 1974 - LORENZO F. MIRAVITE v. COMMISSION ON ELECTION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 289-MJ November 15, 1974 - CELESTINO ALGAS v. WILFREDO GARRIDO

  • G.R. No. L-29139 November 15, 1974 - CONSUELO P. PICZON, ET AL. v. ESTEBAN PICZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-31104 November 15, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO CAOILE

  • G.R. No. L-38565 November 15, 1974 - BAYANI SARMIENTO, ET AL. v. CONSTANTINO NOLASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38773 November 15, 1974 - MIGUEL ALFONSO, ET AL. v. BERNARDO P. FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. No. L-39124 November 15, 1974 - DON LINO GUTIERREZ & SONS, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27113 November 19, 1974 - SABINA BASA, ET AL. v. FOITAF, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-35966 November 19, 1974 - CARLOS MAGPAYO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27862 November 20, 1974 - LORENZO PASCUAL, ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-31852 November 20, 1974 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORPORATION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39028 November 20, 1974 - FERNANDO TANDOC, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26086 November 21, 1974 - AMBROSIO MANAHAN v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ

  • A.C. No. 212-J November 22, 1974 - MARIA ESPORLAS VDA. DE RECARIO, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN H. AQUINO

  • G.R. No. L-20241 November 22, 1974 - LUIS R. SANTIAGO v. PACITA V. DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34300 November 22, 1974 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23249 November 25, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CUNIGUNDA BOHOLST-CABALLERO

  • A.M. No. P-44 November 26, 1974 - MOISES M. MASPIL, ET AL. v. FERNANDO R. ROMERO

  • A.M. No. P-205 November 27, 1974 - GAUDENCIO CONSUNJI v. JOSE VILLANUEVA

  • A.C. No. 980 November 27, 1974 - PEDRO Q. BELTRAN v. VICTOR T. LLAMAS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-37983 November 27, 1974 - JOSE DE PERALTA v. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 71-MJ November 29, 1974 - SOLEDAD AVILLAR DE MULATA, ET AL. v. JUDGE ELIAS C. IRIZARI

  • A.M. No. P-152 November 29, 1974 - MARCIANA P. FLORES v. SOLEDAD V. GANADEN

  • G.R. No. L-26738 November 29, 1974 - CEBU PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. TERESO DUMON

  • G.R. No. L-29318 November 29, 1974 - ANGEL NASIAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF TAX APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-31860 November 29, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMELITO BELTRAN

  • G.R. No. L-36244 November 29, 1974 - ABAYA PLUMBING v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37452 November 29, 1974 - UNION OF SUPERVISORS IN LITEX v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38866 November 29, 1974 - KERAMIK INDUSTRIES, INC. v. BUENAVENTURA J. GUERRERO

  • G.R. Nos. L-39163-4 November 29, 1974 - SUPERBUILT CEMENT PRODUCTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39285 November 29, 1974 - ABRA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., ET AL. v. JUAN P. AQUINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39483 November 29, 1974 - FRANCISCO G. BASAN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-39675 November 29, 1974 - FRANCISCO ESCUETA v. EUTIQUIANO FANDIALAN