G.R. No. L-6901. March 05, 1954

The petitioners were on June 12, 1953, the chief and members of the
police force of Salay, Misamis Oriental. On that date they were removed
from the service by the respondent Rodrigo Zagado as the acting mayor
of the same municipality. The other respondents are the persons
subsequently appointed to the positions thus vacated.

This litigation was instituted without unnecessary delay, to test
the validity of such removals and appointments, the petitioners
contending they were illegal, because contrary to the provisions of
section 1, Republic Act No. 557, which reads in part as follows:

“Members of the provincial guards, city police and
municipal police shall not be removed and, except in cases of
resignation, shall not be discharged 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, * * *”

There is no question that on June 12, 1953 each of the petitioners,
received from the respondent Rodrigo Zagado a letter of dismissal
couched in these terms:

“I have the honor to inform you that according to
the new policy of the present administration, your services as
Municipal Police, this municipality will terminate at the opening of
the office hour in the morning of June 13, 1953, and in view hereof,
you are hereby respectfully advised to tender your resignation
effective immediately upon receipt of this letter.”

There is also no question that on June 14, 1953 said respondent
appointed the other respondents to the vacant positions, which the
latter assumed in due course and presently occupy.

The respondents’ answer, without denying the letters of dismissal,
alleges that Acting Mayor Zagado had dismissed the petitioners “with
legal cause and justification” and that “charges have been preferred
against the said petitioners.”

What that legal cause is, the pleading does not disclose. What the
preferred charges were, we do not know. Whether they are charges of the
kind that justify investigation and dismissal, respondents do not say.
And when the controversy came up for hearing, none appeared for
respondents to enlighten the court on charges or the outcome thereof.

Hence, as the record now stands the petitioners appear to have been
dismissed simply in accordance “with the new policy of the present
administration” as avowed in the letters of dismissal. Probably that is
the “legal cause” alleged by respondents. But they forget and disregard
Republic Act 557, inasmuch as no misconduct or incompetency,
dishonesty, disloyalty to the Government, serious irregularity in the
performance of duty or violation of law has been charged and proven
against the petitioners. The Legislature in said statute has wisely
expressed its desire that membership in the police force shall not be
forfeited through changes of administration, or fluctuations of
“policy”, or causes other than those it has specifically mentioned.

Reinstatement is clearly in order.^[1]

Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioners,
commanding the respondent Acting Mayor Rodrigo Zagado to reinstate them
to their respective positions, and ordering the other respondents to
vacate their places. Costs against respondents. SO ORDERED.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Diokno, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Mission, et al., vs. Dell Rosario, G. R. No. L-6754, supra, p. 483; Manuel vs. De la Fuente, 48 Off. Gaz., 4829, 92 Phil., 302.