Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-6754 February 26, 1954
MAMERTO MISSION, ET AL., petitioners,
vs.
VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, as Acting Mayor of Cebu City, FELIPE B. PAREJA, as City Treasurer and MARTIN KINTANAR, as City Auditor, respondents.
Fernando S. Ruiz for petitioners.
Jose L. Abad for respondents.
BAUTISTA, ANGELO, J.:
Petitioners were detectives in the Police Department of the City of Cebu duly appointed by the Mayor of the city. Some of the appointees were civil service eligibles. Their rank, length of service, and efficiency rating appear in the certification attached to the petition.
On May 11, 12, and 19, 1953, petitioners were notified by the Mayor that they have been removed because he has lost his confidence in them. Following their removal, the City Treasurer and the City Auditor topped the payment of their salaries, and after their positions had been declared vacant because of their removal, the City Mayor immediately filled them with new appointees who are presently discharging the functions and duties appertaining thereto.
Considering that their removal was made in violation of the law and of the Constitution which protect those who are in the civil service, petitioners filed the present petition for mandamus in this Court praying that their removal be declared illegal and without effect and that their reinstatement be ordered and their salaries paid from the date of their removal up to the time of their reinstatement.
Respondents in their answer tried to justify the removal of petitioners contending that, their positions being primarily confidential, their removal can be effected under Executive Order No. 264 of the President of the Philippines, on the ground of lack of trust and confidence. They claim that the Mayor of Cebu City has lost confidence in them, so he separated them from the service upon due notice.
The only issue involved in this petition hinges on the determination of the nature of the positions held by petitioners at the time of their removal. Petitioners contend that, having been appointed detectives, they should be regarded as members of the Police Department of Cebu City and, therefore, they are members of the City Police. AS such they can only be removed in line with the procedure laid down in Republic Act No. 557. On the other hand, respondents contend that petitioners are not members of the police force, but of the detective force, of the City of Cebu, and, therefore, their removal is governed by Executive Order No. 264.
Let us first make a brief outline of the procedure concerning removal laid down in the legislation invoked by the parties before passing on to determine the nature of the positions held by petitioners.
Section 1 of Republic Act. No. 557 provides, in so far as may be pertinent to their case, that the members of the city police shall not be removed "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 city mayor and investigated by the city council in a public hearing, and the accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense. A copy of the charges shall be furnished the accused and the investigating body shall try the case within ten days from notice. The trial shall be finished within a reasonable time, and the investigating body shall decide the case within fifteen days from the time the case is submitted for decision. The decision of the city council shall be appealable to the Commission of Civil Service.
Executive Order No. 264, on the other hand, prescribes a more summary procedure. It applies to secret service agents or detectives and provides in a general way that the appointing officer may terminate the services of the persons appointed if he deems it necessary because of lack of trust or confidence and if the person to be separated is a civil service eligible, the advice of his separation shall state the reason therefor. Under this procedure no investigation is necessary, it being sufficient that the appointee be notified of his separation based on lack of confidence on the part of the appointing officer.
An analysis of the pertinent provisions of the Charter of the City of Cebu (Commonwealth Act No. 58) will reveal that the position of a detective comes under the police department of the city. This is clearly deducible from the provisions of sections 32, 34 and 35. Section 32 creates the position of Chief of Police "who shall have charge of the police department and everything pertaining thereto, including the organization, government, discipline, and disposition of the city police and detective force." Section 34 creates the position of the Chief of the Secret Service who shall, under the Chief of Police, "have charge of the detective work of the department and of the detective force of the city, and shall perform such other duties as may be assigned to him by the Chief of Police." And section 35 classifies the Chief of Police and Assistant Chief of Police, the Chief of the Secret Service and all officers and members of the city police detective force as peace officers. Under this set-up it is clear that, with few exceptions, both policemen and detectives perform common functions and duties and both belong to the police department. In contemplation of law therefore both shall be considered as members of the police force of the of the City of Cebu.
The authorities in the United States are of the same import. Thus, "The word 'detective', as commonly understood, is defined as one of a body of police officers, usually dressed in plain clothes, to whom is entrusted the detection of crimes and the apprehension of the offenders, o a policeman whose business is to detect wrongs by adroitly investigating their haunts and habits." [Grand Rapids & I Ry. Co. vs. King, 83 N.E. 778, 780, 41 Ind. App. 707, citing A.M. Dict. and Webst. Dict. (Vol. 12, Words and Phrases, p. 312.)] The term 'policemen' may include detectives (62 C.J.S., p. 1091). And "the term 'police' has been defined as an organized civil force for maintaining order, preventing and detecting crimes, and enforcing the laws, the body of men by which the municipal law, and regulations of a city, town, or district are enforced." (Vol. 62, C.J.S., p. 1050.).
It appearing that petitioners, as detectives, or members of the police force of Cebu City, were separated from the service not for any of the grounds enumerated in Republic Act No. 557, and without the benefit of investigation or trial therein prescribed, the conclusion is inescapable that their removal is illegal and of no valid effect. In this sense the provisions of Executive Order No. 264 of the President of the Philippines should be deemed as having been impliedly repealed in so far as they may be inconsistent with the provisions of said Act. (See sec. 6, REpublic Act No. 557.) This interpretation is the more justified considering the rank and length of service of many of the petitioners involved. The great majority of them had been in the service for 6 years, one for 9 years, one for 11 years, one for 14 years and one even for 31 years with an efficiency rating which is both commendable and satisfactory. These data give an inkling that their separation is due to causes other than those recognized by law.
Wherefore, the petition is granted, without pronouncement as to costs.
Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion and Diokno, JJ., concur.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
