Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1968 > May 1968 Decisions > G.R. No. L-25819 May 22, 1968 - VITALIANO B. VALDES v. LUCIO C. GUTIERREZ, ETC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-25819. May 22, 1968.]

MAJOR VITALIANO B. VALDES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. LUCIO C. GUTIERREZ, ETC., and THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF MALABON, RIZAL, Respondents-Appellees.

Villareal, Almacen, Navarro & Amores for Appellant.

Provincial Fiscal Benjamin H. Aquino and Assistant Fiscal Carlos.


SYLLABUS


1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION; MANDAMUS; WHEN IT ISSUES. — It is a rule well entrenched in this jurisdiction that mandamus requires a showing of clear and certain right, and it never issues in doubtful cases. And where the legal rights of the petitioner are not well defined, clear and certain, the petition for mandamus must be dismissed. (Aprueba, Et. Al. v. Ganzon, L-20867, Sept. 3, 1966, cited).

2. CIVIL SERVICE; PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; APPOINTMENTS; REPLACEMENT OF NON-ELIGIBLE BY ELIGIBLE. — Appellant’s appointment as police head, even if valid, was temporary. Being a non-eligible, Valdes could not be permanently appointed to a position in the classified service. The appointing power, respondent mayor, could validly terminate Valdes’ appointment upon the appointment of Pedro P. Cruz, who was certified by the Civil Service Commission as eligible for Chief of Police. Appellant could no longer seek reinstatement since the position was validly held by another who was a civil service eligible.

3. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PROTECTION UNDER R.A. 557 MUST BE INVOKED BY CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBLE. — Appellant’s contention that he was entitled to reinstatement and back salaries under section 4 of R.A. 557 is unavailing. It has been consistently ruled that R.A. 557 can only be invoked by civil service eligibles. (Cayabyab v. Cayabyab, 101 Phil., 682, cited).


D E C I S I O N


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


Direct appeal to this Supreme Court against a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Quezon City branch) in its Civil Case No. Q-9502, dismissing the petition filed by appellant Valdes for a writ of mandamus to compel the Mayor and Council of the Municipality of Malabon, Rizal to reinstate appellant as Chief of Police and to pay him back salaries during his period of suspension until reinstated.

The main facts are not controverted. Appellant Vitaliano B. Valdes was appointed by Mayor Gutierrez as Chief of Police of Malabon, Rizal, effective on March 12, 1962, with a compensation of P3,300.00 per annum. This appointment was attested as provisional by the Commissioner of Civil Service with the qualification "to continue until such time as the services of the person possessing appropriate eligibility and qualifications shall have been secured. 1" It is not disputed that the appointee was not a civil service eligible, though he is World War veteran.

On June 13, 1962, appellee Mayor of Malabon suspended petitioner and three patrolmen because they were charged with murder in an information filed by the Provincial Fiscal in Criminal Case No. 11538 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal. 2

Almost three months later, on September 10, 1962, the appellee Mayor appointed Pedro P. Cruz, Jr., as Chief of Police of Malabon "vice Vitaliano B. Valdes, a non-eligible, whose services were terminated." 3 While this appointment was also attested as provisional by the Civil Service Commissioner, Cruz was promoted in salary in July, 1964, and the Civil Service Commissioner transmitted his promotional appointment to the Rizal provincial treasurer with the statement that "the records show that Mr. Cruz qualified in the Chief of Police (Municipal Entrance) examination on November 23, 1963." 4

On May 25, 1965, the appellant Valdes was acquitted of the charge of murder in the criminal case previously mentioned. 5 Thereafter, he demanded in writing that he be reinstated and paid his back salaries, invoking the provisions of section 4 of Republic Act 557. Both the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal and the Commissioner of Civil Service ruled against the reinstatement sought, for the reason that appellant’s appointment being provisional, it is terminable at pleasure of the appointing power. 6

It further appears that sometime later, the Commissioner of Civil Service cancelled the eligibility of Chief of Police Pedro Cruz, Jr. 7 but the latter obtained a writ of injunction from the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Caloocan City) against the implementation of the order cancelling the eligibility of Cruz. 8 There is no proof that the injunction has been set aside.

On September 28, 1965, Valdes filed a petition in the Court a quo for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, Municipal Mayor and Municipal Council of Malabon to reinstate him as Chief of Police and pay him back salaries during his suspension. The Provincial Fiscal, in representation of the respondents filed an answer, pleading that the appointment of Valdes was void because it was not approved by the municipal council as required by section 2259 of the Revised Administrative Code; that, at any rate, Valdes not being a civil service eligible, his appointment was only temporary and terminable at any time by the appointing power and that it was so terminated with the appointment of Chief of Police Pedro P. Cruz, Jr.; and that reinstatement of petitioner (now appellant herein) was not possible in view of the writ of injunction issued against the Civil Service Commissioner and the Mayor of Malabon.

Premises considered, the Court of First Instance of Rizal found that the petitioner had no valid cause of action, and dismissed the petition for mandamus. Whereupon, Valdes appealed to this Court.

We must agree with the Court below that mandamus does not lie. It is rule well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that mandamus requires a showing of clear and certain right, and it never issues in doubtful cases.

"And where the legal rights of the petitioner, as in the case at bar, are not well defined, clear and certain, the petition for mandamus must be dismissed." (Aprueba Et. Al. v. Ganzon, L-20867, Sept. 8, 1966). 9

In the present case, several factors militate against the reinstatement sought by appellant:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

(1) His appointment as Chief of Police was made without the consent of the municipal council, as required by section 2259 of the Administrative Code; hence, it was not a valid appointment.

"SEC. 2259. Appointment of members of police force. — The Chief of police and other members of the force shall be appointed by the mayor, with the consent of the municipal council. In case of disagreement between the mayor and the municipal council regarding the appointment of the chief of police, if such disagreement extends over more than three months after the submission of the nomination by the mayor, the provincial board shall take action and decide such disagreement, and its decision shall be final."cralaw virtua1aw library

(2) Appellant’s appointment as Police head, even if valid, was temporary: being a non-eligible, Valdes could not be permanently appointed to a position in the classified service. The appointing power, respondent Mayor, could validly terminate Valdes’ appointment, and did so terminate it upon the appointment of Pedro P. Cruz, Jr., "vice Vitaliano B. Valdes, a non-eligible whose services were terminated." While appellant claims that he was not given termination notice, his bare assertion to that effect does not suffice to overcome the presumption of regularity and performance of what the law prescribes.

Nor can Valdes find refuge in the proviso attached to his appointment (Annex A, Petition) that the same was "to continue until such time as the services of a person possessing appropriate qualifications shall have been secured." Obviously, such proviso could not have been intended to apply to a case where the appointee is indicted for murder, and the issue of the case is not foreseeable. For the municipality could not, for reasons readily seen, retain a murder indictee as is Chief of Police; and upon the other hand, it could not leave the police force indefinitely without a chief. The appointment of a successor thus became imperative, urgent and justified under the circumstances. The foregoing consideration likewise rebut the preference allegedly possessed by appellant as World War veteran.

(3) As noted before, appellant’s successor, Pedro P. Cruz, Jr., was certified by the Civil Service Commission as eligible for Chief of Police in July, 1964, and his appointment was thereby purged of defects nearly one year prior to appellant’s acquittal in the murder case. Hence, appellant could no longer seek reinstatement, since the position was validly held by another, who was a civil service eligible.

(4) While the Civil Service Commissioner attempted to cancel the eligibility of the incumbent Cruz, such action could not be implemented in view of the injunction issued by the Rizal (Caloocan) Court of First Instance. This injunction, in effect, blocked the reinstatement of Valdes, even granting that he was entitled thereto. There is no showing that the injunction has been lifted or dissolved.

(5) Appellant’s contention that he was entitled to reinstatement and back salaries under section 4 of Republic Act No. 557 is unavailing, for it has been consistently ruled that Republic Act 557 can only be invoked by civil service eligibles (Amora v. Bibera [1956] 99 Phil. 1,10; Cayabyab v. Cayabyab [1957] 101 Phil. 682, 683, and cases therein cited; Quiatchon v. Villanueva, 101 Phil. 990, 995- 996).

"The petitioner who is not a civil service eligible can not invoke the protection afforded by Republic Act No. 557, because it can only be invoked by civil service eligibles" (Cayabyab v. Cayabyab, supra.).

"The latter (non-eligibles) can not successfully invoke the provisions of Republic Act No. 557, as the Act guarantees the tenure of office of provincial guards and members of city and municipal police who are eligibles. Non eligibles do not come under the protection of the Act." (Amora Et. Al. v. Bibera et al,. supra.)

Appellant invokes People v. Bautista, 96 Phil. 43, wherein it was ruled that under section 4 of Republic Act No. 557, the acquittal of members of the municipal police charged with rape ipso facto entitles them to reinstatement and payment of their salary during suspension. In view of the rulings that Republic Act No. 557 can not be invoked by non-eligibles, and does not protect them, the People v. Bautista doctrine must be interpreted as covering only members of police forces who are civil service eligibles. There is nothing in the decision itself that those ordered reinstated by it were non- eligibles.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against appellant Valdes.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro and Angeles, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Exh. 9-A. Folder of Exhibits.

2. Petition, Annex A.

3. Exhibit 3.

4. Exhibit 4.

5. Petition, Annex D.

6. Exhibits 1 and 2, Folder of Exhibits, pp. 43 and 47.

7. Exhibit 5.

8. Exhibit 7.

9. Also Hodges v. Ganzon, L-18086, Aug. 31, 1964; Villamor Et. Al. v. Lacson, L-15945, Nov. 28, 1964; Alzate v. Aldana, L-18085. May 31, 1963.




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






May-1968 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25668 May 2, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN JUGILON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22005 May 3, 1968 - JESUSA LACSON VDA. DE ARROYO, ET AL. v. EL BEATERIO DEL SANTISSIMO ROSARIO DE MOLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26065 May 3, 1968 - GERONIMO P. ZALDIVAR v. NUMERIANO ESTENZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21743 May 4, 1968 - FEDERICO CAÑETE, ET AL. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23458 May 4, 1968 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS AND STEEL CORP. v. NATIONAL SHIPYARDS EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSOC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24264 May 4, 1968 - PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19829 May 4, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO COKENG

  • G.R. No. L-24538 May 4, 1968 - IN RE: PONCIANO B. FLORES v. ROSALINA SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28469 May 7, 1968 - UNA KIBAD v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25345 May 13, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO GARCELLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24247 May 13, 1968 - COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS v. ACTG. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. Nos. L-21583 and L-21591-92 May 20, 1968 - DANIEL BULANTE v. CHU LIANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23758 May 20, 1968 - MAXIMINA OYOD DE GARCES, ET AL. v. ESMERALDA BROCE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24983 May 20, 1968 - FLORENTINO GENATO, ET AL. v. FELISA GENATO DE LORENZO

  • G.R. No. L-24560 May 21, 1968 - CONSUELO S. CALALANG v. ENRIQUE MEDINA, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20952 May 22, 1968 - IN RE: CHUA UAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22250 May 22, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EULOGIO BALAO

  • G.R. No. L-22320 May 22, 1968 - MERCEDES RUTH COBB-PEREZ, ET AL. v. GREGORIO LANTIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23640 May 22, 1968 - REMEDIOS MALUPA VDA. DE LAYAG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24192 May 22, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS v. CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25308 May 22, 1968 - ELISEO EGUIA DUMAPIG v. GERONIMO R. MARAVE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25819 May 22, 1968 - VITALIANO B. VALDES v. LUCIO C. GUTIERREZ, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27252 May 22, 1968 - FELIPE IMPERIAL v. ROMAN CATHOLIC OF ARCHBISHOP OF CACERES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20891 May 23, 1968 - TOMAS B. TADEO v. ROMULO VISPERAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24665 May 23, 1968 - TIBURCIO ALCOBER, ET AL. v. HONORATO GARCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24805 May 23, 1968 - IN RE: YAP PUEY ENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25165 May 23, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REFUGIO DEVARAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23017 May 23, 1968 - LA SUERTE CIGAR & CIGARETTE FACTORY v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DEL DANAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24173 May 23, 1968 - PROCTER & GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MFG. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-24410 May 23, 1968 - BERNARDA NAZAL v. FELICIANO BELMONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22347 May 27, 1968 - FILIPINAS INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. LOURDES P. SAN DIEGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22611 May 27, 1968 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. VISAYAN ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22943 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: TEH SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23056 May 27, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24280 May 27, 1968 - EUNARIA B. VDA. DE GUILAS, ET AL. v. ANANIAS DAVID, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24564 May 27, 1968 - AMADO L. MENDOZA v. RODRIGUEZ & COMPANY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24581 May 27, 1968 - MIGUEL PEREZ RUBIO v. SAMUEL REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24772 May 27, 1968 - RUPERTO G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. FlLIPINAS INVESTMENT & FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-24800 May 27, 1968 - IN RE: PIO NERIA v. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

  • G.R. No. L-26077 May 27, 1968 - SURIGAO CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY, INC. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26797 May 27, 1968 - REYNALDO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. ARTURO JIMENEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27598 May 27, 1968 - ELISA MEDINA CUE v. PILAR DOLLA

  • G.R. No. L-24288 May 28, 1968 - LEONOR MANUEL CASTILLO UDAN v. QUIRICO C. AMON, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24484 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON C. NARCISO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25942 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. L-25997 May 28, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MONICA ANINO

  • G.R. No. L-27951 May 28, 1968 - PABLO C. SANIDAD v. CRESCENCIANO L. SAQUING, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28955 May 28, 1968 - USO DAN AGUAM v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19867 May 29, 1968 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CALSONS, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20322 May 29, 1968 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. PERFECTO R. PALACIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22030 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DARIO ROLDAN

  • G.R. No. L-22426 May 29, 1968 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PELAGIO CONDEMENA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23021 May 29, 1968 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. MARIANO RIVERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24490 May 29, 1968 - CIRIACO LANDA v. FRANCISCO TOBIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24664 May 29, 1968 - CORAZON ALEGRE, ET AL. v. VICTORINA G. DE LAPERAL

  • G.R. No. L-24677 May 29, 1968 - YAP TECK SUY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25551 May 29, 1968 - IN RE: CHAN DE v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-26364 May 29, 1968 - MARIANO A. ALBERT v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ET AL.