Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1924 > December 1924 Decisions > G.R. No. 23222 December 29, 1924 - RICARDO CABALUNA v. HONORIO VENTURA

047 Phil 165:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 23222. December 29, 1924. ]

RICARDO CABALUNA, Petitioner, v. HONORIO VENTURA, Chief of the Executive Bureau, and FELIPE AGONCILLO, Secretary of the Interior, Respondents.

Francisco & Lualhati for Petitioner.

Attorney-General Villa-Real for Respondents.

SYLLABUS


1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; MUNICIPAL OFFICER; CHIEF OF POLICE PAYMENT OF SALARY WITHHELD DURING SUSPENSION. — The chief of police is municipal officer within the meaning of section 2192 of the Administrative Code; and where the salary of a chief of police is withheld during suspension under charges, the Department Head has the discretion, upon the exoneration and reinstatement of the officer, to order the payment of the whole part of the salary accruing, during such suspension; but this discretion will not be controlled by writ of mandamus.


D E C I S I O N


STREET, J. :


By the amended petition in this cause the petitioner, Ricardo Cabaluna, seeks to obtain a writ of mandamus against the Honorable Felipe Agoncillo, Secretary of the Interior and Honorio Ventura, Chief of the Executive Bureau, requiring them to order payment to the petitioner of the salary withheld from him for the period during which he had been suspended from the office of chief of police of Iloilo. A demurrer having been filed by the Attorney-General on behalf of the respondents the cause was submitted for a determination of the questions thus presented.

It appears that prior to October 16, 1923, the petitioner was chief of police of the municipality of Iloilo, upon which date he was suspended from office by the provincial governor of Iloilo by reason of the pendency of a prosecution against him for the alleged offense of unfaithfullness in office (prevaricacion). In said prosecution the petitioner was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, but upon appeal to this court the judgment was reversed and he was absolved (People v. Cabaluna, G. R. No. 21461 1). After his final acquittal the Honorable Ruperto Montinola, provincial governor of Iloilo, published an executive order reinstating the petitioner in the office of chief of police of Iloilo and concluding in the following words: "and upon the reinstatement, the incumbent shall be entitled to draw his full salary during the period of his suspension, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior." This order was forwarded in usual course through the Chief of the Executive Bureau to the Honorable Felipe Agoncillo, Secretary of the Interior, and was returned to the provincial governor of Iloilo, disapproved, with the statement that, according to the opinion of the Attorney-General, the chief of police is not a municipal officer within the meaning of section 2192 of the Administrative Code, and that consequently there is no law under which the salary accruing during the suspension of the petitioner could be paid.

As the case is submitted to us two questions are presented, namely, whether a chief of police is a municipal officer within the meaning of section 2192 of the Administrative Code; and, whether, assuming that he is a municipal officer, the respondent Secretary of the Interior can be constrained to reverse his action and approve the executive order of Governor Montinola, authorizing the payment to the petitioner of the salary has been withheld.

Upon the first of these points we do not hesitate to declare that a chief of police is a municipal officer within the meaning of section 2192 of the Administrative Code and that the Department Head has a discretion under that section to order the payment in whole or in part of the salary that was withheld from the petitioner during his suspension. Section 2169 enumerates as chief officials of the municipal government, the president, the vice-president, the treasurer, and the councilors; but said section does not pretend to enumerate all of the officers of the municipal government. In section 2 of the Administrative Code, we find a suggestive definition of "officer," wherein it is stated that said term, as used in the Administrative Code, refers to officials whose duties, not being of a clerical or manual nature, may be considered to involve the exercise of discretion in the performance of the functions of Government, whether such duties are precisely defined by law or not. That the chief of police exercises the functions of an officer is a matter about which there can be no doubt. That he is a municipal officer within the meaning of section 2192 of the Administrative Code is equally clear. The chief of police is appointed by the municipal president, with the consent of the council (Admin. Code, sec. 2259, as amended by Act No. 3144); his salary is paid from municipal funds (Admin. Code, sec. 2273); he is subject to suspension and removal by the president, with the consent of the majority of the council (Admin. Code, sec. 2201, as amended by section 6 of Act No. 3115); and he is subject to the same administrative discipline as other municipal officers. (Borja v. Agoncillo, 46 Phil. 432.) The circumstance that he is a peace officer and subject to additional military regulations prescribed by the Chief of the Constabulary is not in any wise inconsistent with his status as a municipal officer.

Moreover, if the petitioner is to be excluded from the operation of section 2192 of the Administrative Code as not being a municipal officer within the meaning of said section, it would result that the case would be governed by section 260 of said Code, since it must at least be admitted that the chief of police is administratively subordinate to the provincial governor, who suspended him. The difference between the two sections is that under section 2192 the matter of paying salary withheld during suspension is left within the discretion of the Department Head, while under section 260 the payment of such salary is peremptorily required subject only to the disciplinary provisions of the Civil Service Law. As already indicated, the provision applicable to the case is clearly section 2192. It would indeed be singular if the Legislature had intended to exclude the chief of police from the benefit of so just a provision, and no such intention can, in our opinion, be fairly deduced from the language used.

From what has been said it is manifest that the action taken by the respondent Secretary of the Interior in disapproving the order of Governor Montinola for the payment of the withheld salary was based upon an erroneous assumption as to the state of the law. But it does not follow that this court has jurisdiction to compel the Secretary of the Interior or his correspondent, the Chief of the Executive Bureau, to order the payment of said salary. The law says that n the case that has occurred "the Department Head may order the payment of the whole or part of the salary accruing during such suspension." When this provision is read in conjunction with section 5 of the Administrative Code it will be seen that the expression "may order," as here used, implies the use of discretion, and cannot be interpreted in the sense of "shall order." For aught we know there may be other reasons besides that expressed in communication of the respondent Secretary of the Interior which would justify withholding the salary now claimed by the Respondent. At any rate the law places the responsibility of deciding the matter on the administrative officer, and this court will not attempt to control him in the exercise of his official discretion.

The demurrer must therefore be sustained; and it being evident that the petition suffers from a defect not curable by amendment, an order will be entered dismissing the petition, without costs.

Johnson, Malcolm, Avanceña, Villamor, Ostrand, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Promulgated August 21, 1924, not reported.




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






December-1924 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-22066 December 2, 1924 - FRANCISCA MAGHIRANG, ET AL. v. ATILANO BALCITA, ET AL. ET AL.

    046 Phil 551

  • G.R. No. L-22104 December 2, 1924 - IN RE: VICENTE TAD-Y

    046 Phil 557

  • G.R. No. L-22177 December 2, 1924 - TUASON, INC., ET AL. v. ANTONIO MACHUCA

    046 Phil 561

  • G.R. No. L-22197 December 2, 1924 - GIL CALIMBAS v. SEVERINA PAGUIO

    046 Phil 566

  • G.R. No. L-22223 December 2, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. RUFINO S. MANALO, ET AL.

    046 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. L-22388 December 2, 1924 - CHUA YU v. PHILIP C. WHITAKER, ET AL.

    046 Phil 578

  • G.R. No. L-22619 December 2, 1924 - NATIONAL COAL CO. v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    046 Phil 583

  • G.R. No. L-22738 December 2, 1924 - ONG GUAN CAN, ET AL. v. CENTURY INS. CO., LTD.

    046 Phil 592

  • G.R. No. L-22257 December 3, 1924 - SERVANDO DE LOS ANGELES v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ

    046 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-22450 December 3, 1924 - YU CHUCK, ET AL. v. "KONG LI PO"

    046 Phil 608

  • G.R. No. L-22783 December 3, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. CHARLES H. SLEEPER

    046 Phil 625

  • G.R. No. 22537 December 8, 1924 - BEHN, MEYER & CO. v. J. S. STANLEY, ET AL.

    047 Phil 998

  • G.R. No. 22779 December 8, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAIN, ET AL.

    051 Phil 933

  • G.R. No. L-21334 December 10, 1924 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANASTACIA ABADILLA, ET AL.

    046 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. 21005 December 20, 1924 - AMERICAN FOREIGN BANKING CORP. v. J. R. HERRIDGE

    049 Phil 975

  • G.R. No. 22679 December 10, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. DOMINGO OLFINDO, ET AL.

    047 Phil 1

  • G.R. No. 22399 December 12, 1924 - MARIANO ANTONIO v. SANTIAGO ANTONIO, ET AL.

    047 Phil 6

  • G.R. No. 22718 December 13, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. ANTONIO AMANTE

    047 Phil 8

  • G.R. No. 22574 December 15, 1924 - BENIGNA I. CRUZ, ET AL v. FRANCISCA CRUZ

    047 Phil 10

  • G.R. No. 22655 December 15, 1924 - JUAN S. ALVAREZ v. DALMACIO GUEVARA WEE

    047 Phil 12

  • G.R. No. 22498 December 16, 1924 - A. M. TUAZON v. NORTH CHINA INSURANCE CO., LTD., ET AL

    047 Phil 14

  • G.R. No. 22656 December 16, 1924 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. OLUTANGA LUMBER COMPANY

    047 Phil 20

  • G.R. No. 22136 December 17, 1924 - RAMON LOPEZ v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    047 Phil 23

  • G.R. No. 22585 December 17, 1924 - GEORGE M. ICARD v. J. W. NOBLE defendant

    047 Phil 37

  • G.R. No. 23108 December 18, 1924 - TIMOTEO UNSON, ET AL v. Hon. QUIRICO ABETO, ET AL

    047 Phil 42

  • G.R. Nos. 22642-22644 December 19, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO A. PACANA, ET AL

    047 Phil 48

  • G.R. Nos. 21000, 21002-21004 & 21006 December 20, 1924 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL. v. J. R. HERRIDGE, ET AL

    047 Phil 57

  • G.R. No. 22709 December 20, 1924 - LA INSULAR v. B. E. JAO OGE

    047 Phil 75

  • G.R. No. 22971 December 20, 1924 - J. J. RAFFERTY v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

    047 Phil 83

  • G.R. No. 22125 December 22, 1924 - AFIFE ABDO CHEYBAN GORAYEB v. NADJIB TANNUS HASHIM

    047 Phil 87

  • G.R. No. 22451 December 22, 1924 - TAN SEN GUAN v. GO SIU SAN

    047 Phil 89

  • G.R. No. 22511 December 22, 1924 - FELISA ROMAN v. J.R. HERRIDGE

    047 Phil 98

  • G.R. No. 22803 December 22, 1924 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. GABRIELLE DE LOS ANGELES

    047 Phil 108

  • G.R. No. 21345 December 29, 1924 - AFIFE ABDO CHEYBAN GORAYEB v. NADJIB TANNUS HASHIM, ET AL.

    047 Phil 111

  • G.R. Nos. 21651-25153 December 29, 1924 - LOTHAR F. ENGEL, ET AL. v. MARIANO VELASCO & CO.

    047 Phil 115

  • G.R. No. 21755 December 29, 1924 - FILOMENA NAYVE v. LEONA MOJAL and LUCIANA AGUILAR

    047 Phil 152

  • G.R. No. 22266 December 29, 1924 - THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. JOSE INSA

    047 Phil 158

  • G.R. No. 23183 December 29, 1924 - FILOMENA ONA v. SERVILIANO PLATON

    047 Phil 162

  • G.R. No. 23222 December 29, 1924 - RICARDO CABALUNA v. HONORIO VENTURA

    047 Phil 165