G.R. No. 10989. May 28, 1958
PONCIANO GACHO, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HON. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
CONCEPCION, J.:
positions, under permanent appointments, as detectives in the Police Department
of the City of Cebu, with a compensation of P1,440 per annum. They were, also,
insured under the Government Service Insurance System. Twenty (20) of them are
civil service eligibles. Their names, length of service and efficiency ratings
are:
|
Name
|
Length of Service
|
Efficiency Ratings
|
|||
|
“1.
|
P. Gacho……………….. |
9 years
|
90
|
||
|
2
|
L. Alfafara ……………….. |
8 years
|
|||
|
7 months
|
89
|
||||
|
3
|
V. L. Abella ……………….. |
10 years
|
|||
|
9 months
|
90
|
||||
|
4
|
C. Alejandro……………….. |
10 years
|
|||
|
3 months
|
Suspended
|
||||
|
5.
|
Roque Caballes ……………. |
9 years
|
|||
|
8 months
|
89%
|
||||
|
6
|
Jose Almeda……………… |
8 years
|
|||
|
2 months
|
87%
|
||||
|
7.
|
Lucio Alforque …………….. |
9 years
|
|||
|
8 months
|
82%
|
||||
|
8
|
N. Faunillan……………….. |
8 years
|
|||
|
1 months
|
86%
|
||||
|
9
|
Herminio Solon ……………. |
9 years
|
|||
|
8 months
|
90%
|
||||
|
10
|
Primo Samson ……………. |
9 years
|
|||
|
8 months
|
89%
|
||||
|
11
|
Romeo Colina ……………. |
1 years
|
|||
|
9 months
|
84%
|
||||
|
12
|
Rafael Galan……………….. |
9 years
|
|||
|
10 months
|
84%
|
||||
|
13
|
T. Daclan……………….. |
9 years
|
|||
|
8 months
|
85%
|
||||
|
14
|
V. Atillo ……………….. |
5 years
|
|||
|
5 months
|
87%
|
||||
|
15
|
Daniel Datan……………….. |
15 years
|
|||
|
10 months
|
85%
|
||||
|
16
|
D. Deiparine ……………….. |
9 years
|
|||
|
8 months
|
88%
|
||||
|
17
|
E. Delgado……………….. |
9 years
|
|||
|
8 months
|
85%
|
||||
|
18
|
Romulo Matela …………… |
9 years
|
|||
|
8 months
|
87%
|
||||
|
19
|
M. Tenchavez…………….. |
9 years
|
83%
|
||
|
20
|
Jose Torres……………….. |
8 months
|
|||
|
5 years
|
84% |
The rest have no civil service eligibility. Their names, length of service
and efficiency ratings follow:
|
Name
|
Length of Service
|
Efficiency Ratings
|
|||
| “1. | Antonio Echivarre | 9 years | 90% | ||
| 3 mos.15 days | |||||
| 2 | Miguel Cabaral | 9 years | 85% | ||
| 9 months | |||||
| 3 | Natalio Navarro | 2 years | 85% | ||
| 2 months | |||||
| 4 | Balbino Nadela | 15 years | 82% | ||
| 5 months | |||||
| 5 | Ciriaco Sasada | 9 years | 90% | ||
| 8 months | |||||
| 6 | Cornelio Laborte | 9years | 85% | ||
| 8 months | |||||
| 7. | Isidro Ramos | 3 years | 90% | ||
| 4 months |
In 1953, the Mayor of Cebu dismissed, among others, twenty (20) of herein
petitioners, who were subsequently reinstated, however, in compliance with final
judgments of competent courts, declaring such dismissal illegal, in the
following cases:
- Mission, et al vs. Vicente del Rosario, et al.,*G. R. No. L-6754 of the Supreme Court (decided
on February 26, 1954; 50 Off. Gaz., 1571, as regards Lorenzo Alfafara, Vicente
L. Abella, Roque Caballes, Lucio Alforque, Antonio Echivarre, Primo Samson,
Rafael Galan, Tranquilino Daclan, Victoriano Atillo, Daniel Datan, Dionisio
Deiparine, Epifanio Delgado, Cornelio Laborte, Romulo Matela, Melchor Tenchavez
and Ponciano Gacho; - Salvador Saavedra, et al. vs Vicente del Rosario, Civil Case No. R-3153 of
the Court of First Instance of Cebu (decided on March 22, 1954), as to Balbino
Nadela; - Jose Almeda vs. Vicente del Rosario, et al., Civil Case No. R-3214 of the
same court (decided on December 20, 1954), as to Jose Almeda; - Miguel Cabaral vs, Vicente del Rosario, et al., Civil Case No. R-3161 of
said court (decided on November 26, 1954), as to Miguel Cabaral; and - Rodriguez, et al. vs. Del Rosario, et al.,*G. R. No. L-6715 of the Supreme Court (decided
on October 30, 1953; 49 Off. Gaz., 5427), as to Nicasio Faunillan.
On February 9, 1955, the Municipal Board of Cebu approved Ordinance No. 188
thereof, appropriating funds for the operation of the City of Cebu during the
fiscal year 1954-3 955. Items 19 and 28 of said
Ordinance read:
“19. Thirty-eight Patrolmen at P1,440 per annum each (transferred from
Seventy-one Detectives)…………………………………….P54,720.00“28. Thirty-three Detectives at P1,440.00 per annum each (from Seventy-one
Detectives at P1,440.- per annum each)………..47,520.00”
Referring to this Ordinance, the Department of Finance in a communication
dated June 14, 1955, stated;
“Likewise, no objection is offered to the changes in designation of certain
positions and the abolition of sixteen positions of immunization sanitary
inspectors provided no one, especially a civil service eligible, will be
prejudiced of Executive Order No. 506, dated September 12, 1932 and provincial
Circular (Unnumbered) dated January 11, 1952 of the Office of the President,
both bearing in part on the abolition of positions in an
office.”
Owing to the failure of the Municipal Board of Cebu City to enact a new
budget for the fiscal year 1955-1956, the appropriation incorporated in said
Ordinance No. 188 was deemed reenacted for that fiscal year (C.A. No. 58, sec.
15). On May 12, 1956, respondent City Mayor wrote to petitioners herein
identical letters (Annexes I and I-l to 1-24) advising them that their positions
as detectives had been abolished by said Ordinance No. 188 “effective
immediately” and at the same time enclosing therewith their appointments as
patrolmen, effective May 16, 1956, but “good until revoked” (Annexes J and J-1
to J-24). Petitioners refused to accept these appointments, in the belief,
according to their petition (par. 18 of the original petition; par. 17 of their
amended petition) “that this was another scheme to effect their removal and a
devise to go around the provisions of Republic Act No. 557 and other laws,
executive orders, regulations and circulars, since, as already mentioned above,
20 of said petitioners had already been victims of illegal mass dismissals, but
were reinstated by judicial authority.” However, the City Auditor and City
Treasurer of Cebu City refused, and still refuse, to authorize payment and to
pay the salaries of petitioners herein since May 16, 1956, copies of said
letters Annexes I and 1-1 to 1-24 having been furnished said officers. Inasmuch
as respondent City Mayor refused to reconsider his action as regards petitioners
herein, the latter instituted the present case against the City Mayor, the
Municipal Board, the City Auditor, the City Treasurer and the Chief of Police of
the City of Cebu, as well as the City of Cebu itself. The latter was,
subsequently, excluded as respondent, in an amended petition thereafter filed by
petitioners herein. After setting forth the foregoing facts and alleging that
their aforementioned dismissal is illegal and violative of Article XII, section
4, of the Constitution, section 694 of the Revised Administrative Code,
Executive Orders Nos. 506 (dated September 12, 1934) and 175 (dated November 11,
1938), and unnumbered Provincial Circulars issued by the President of the
Philippines on January 11, 1952 and April 3, 1954; that petitioners have thus
been excluded from the use and enjoyment of their positions; and that
respondents have unlawfully neglected the performance of an act which the
aforementioned laws, executive orders and circulars specially enjoin as a duty
resulting from their office, by separating the petitioners from the service,
petitioners pray this Court in their amended petition:
“(A) Pending final determination of this case:
(1) To issue a preliminary mandatory injunction restoring the petitioners to
their positions, and directing the respondents City Treasurer and City Auditor
to pay their salaries;(2) To fix the bond for the preliminary mandatory injunction and to authorize
any Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu to approve said bond in such
amount as this Honorable Court may determine; and further directing that upon
approval of said bond, petitioners be restored and their salaries paid; and“(B) After hearing:
(1) To declare the abolition of the position and/or the removal and/or the
transfer of said petitioners to the uniformed division as made with grave abuse
of discretion and/or as null and void and without any force and effect
whatsoever;(2) To make the preliminary mandatory injunction permanent and/or order the
respondents to reinstate the petitioners to their positions as detectives in the
police department of the City of Cebu with back salaries from May 16, 1956,
until they are restored to their positions;(3) To order the respondent City Mayor Sergio Osmeña, Jr., to countermand his
advices ANNEXES T to ‘I-24’ to the petitioners and to restore them to their
positions;(4) To order the Municipal Board to set aside such amount as correspond to
the salaries of petitioners;(5) To order the City Auditor to pass in audit, and the City Treasurer to
pay, the salaries due to petitioners from May 16, 1956 until they are
restored;(6) To order respondent City Mayor to pay the costs of this action and, in
the alternative, to order the respondent City Mayor to pay the petitioners their
back salaries;(7) To grant petitioners such other remedies and reliefs as are just and
equitable in the premises.”
In their answer, respondents alleged that the word “permanent” does not
appear in the appointments originally extended to petitioners herein; that the
City of Cebu may validly abolish old positions and create new ones; that
Ordinance No. 188 had lawfully abolished the old positions of petitioners herein
as detectives in the Police Department of Cebu City; that petitioners were not
removed from office, and, hence, may invoke, neither the Constitution, nor
Republic Act No. 557, nor section 694 of the Revised Administrative Code, which
are inapplicable; that respondent City Mayor is clothed with authority to freely
choose the men to fill up the newly created positions of policemen of the City
of Cebu; that, in the legitimate exercise of such authority, said respondent
extended new appointments to the petitioners, thus believing his alleged intent
to circumvent the laws, executive orders and circulars above mentioned; that in
acting as he did, respondent City Mayor merely followed the opinion given by the
City Fiscal, the City Auditor and the City Treasurer of Cebu; and that by
petitioners’ failure to accept said new appointments, they had “forfeited and
tost their new positions in the uniformed division” of the police department of
Cebu.
Pursuant to the Charter thereof (C.A. No. 58, as amended), the City of Cebu
shall have, and has, a police department, with “a 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” (Sec. 32), and “an assistant chief of police whose duties shall
be to act as chief of police in the absence or inability to act of the chief of
police, and under the direction of such chief of police to look after the
discipline of the police foi’ce and to perform such other duties as may be
imposed upon him by the chief of police or prescribed by law or ordinance” (Sec.
33). There shall, also, be, in the City of Cebu, “a chief of 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 or prescribed by law, or
ordinance” (Sec. 34). The powers and duties of the chief of police, assistant
chief of police and chief of secret service, as well as those of the members of
the city police and detective force, are set forth in Section 35, reading:
“The Mayor, the chief and assistant chief of police, the chief of the secret
service, and ail officers and members of the city police and detective force
shall be peace officers. Such peace officers are auhorized to serve and execute
all processes of the Municipal Court and criminal processes of all other courts
to whomsoever directed, within the jurisdictional limits, of the city or within
the police limits as hereinbefore defined; within the same territory, to pursue
and arrest, without warrant, any person found in suspicious places or under
suspicious circumstances reasonably tending to show that such person has
committed, or is about to commit, any crime or breach of the peace; to arrest or
cause to be arrested, without warrant, any offender when the offense is
committed in the presence of a peace officer or within his view; in such pursuit
or arrest to enter any building, ship, boat, or vessel, or take1 into custody
any person therein suspected of being concerned in such crime or breach of the
peace, and any property suspected of having-been stolen; and to exercise such
other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law or
ordinance. They shall detain an arrested person only until he can be brought
before the proper magistrate. Whenever the Mayor shall deem it necessary, to
avert danger or to protect life and property, in case of riot, disturbance, or
public calamity, or when he has reason to fear any serious violation of Jaw and
order, he shall have power to swear in special police, in such numbers as the
occasion may demand. Such special police shall have the same powers while on
duty as members of the regular force.”
Having these provisions in mind, Jet us now consider the main issue in this
case, namely: Have the positions held by petitioners herein, as members of the
police department of the City of Cebu, been abolished by Ordinance No. 188?
The 1953-1954 budget of the City of Cebu for the fiscal year 1953-1954,
Ordinance 167 thereof (Annex 11), contained, under the heading of Police
Department, the following item:
“22. Seventy-one detectives at P1,440.00 each per
annum…………………………………………………………………………..P102,240.00”.
This item was split in Ordinance No. 188 into two (2) items, namely:
“19. Thirty-eight Patrolmen at P1,440 per annum each (transferred from
Seventy-one Detectives)………………………..P54,720.00.“28. Thirty-three Detectives at P1,440.00 per annum each (from Seventy-one
Detectives at P1.440.- per annum each)….P47,520.00”,
It will be noted that Item No. 19, for thirty-eight (38) patrolmen at
P1,440.00 per annum each, explicitly declares that it was merely “transferred”
from the afore-mentioned Item No. 22 in Ordinance No. 167 for seventy-one (71)
detectives. Now to “transfer” is to convey something; to transport, to move or
to cause it to pass from one place to another. That which is transferred must
be, therefore, something in existence, for that which does not exist cannot be
transported, conveyed, moved or caused to pass from one place to another. Upon
the other hand, to “abolish” is to do away with, to annul, abrogate or destroy
completely. As a consequence, what has been abolished ceases to exist or
disappears, and, hence, it cannot be “transferred.” Prima facie, therefore, said
Item No. 3 9 of Ordinance No. 188 does not connote abolition of the thirty-eight
(38) positions of “detectives” therein alluded to. On the contrary, the transfer
of the item for said positions to another section, branch or division of the
police department, suggests the retention and preservation of said
positions.
Does the use of the term “patrolmen” in Ordinance No. 188 in lieu of
“detectives”, indicate the intent to abolish said thirty-eight (38) positions?
Regardless of the negative implication, of the term “transfer”, an affirmative
answer would, perhaps, have been possible if the powers and duties attached by
law to the position of patrolmen, were legally different from those vested in
detectives. However, the above-quoted section 35 of the Charter of Cebu assigns
the same power and duties to both. Hence, in Mission vs. Del Rosario (supra), we
declared that “both detectives and policemen perform common functions and
duties, and both belong to the police department,” and the communication of the
Department of Finance of June 14, 1955 (Annex G) approving Ordinance No. 188,
referred to Item No. 19 thereof as involving-a “change of designation”, as
distinguished from “the abolition of sixteen (16) positions of immunization
sanitary inspectors * * *.” In other words, the language used in said Item No.
19 of Ordinance No. 188 indicates the intent to maintain the positions therein
referred to, although in another branch of the same police department of
Cebu.
This was, evidently, what the framers of Ordinance No. 188 had in mind, for
the administration that approved it, in 1955, did not declare that the positions
held by petitioners had been abolished, and, instead, retained them in their
aforesaid positions without extending to them new appointments. Such
contemporaneous interpretation given by those responsible for the enactment of
said Ordinance is strongly indicative of the intent of its authors and refutes
respondents’ pretense.
The cases of Manalang vs. Quitoriano,* G.R. No. L-6898 (decided on April 30, 1954), and Ocampo vs. Secretary of Justice,
G. R. No. L-7910 (decided on January 18, 1955), cited by respondents, are not in
point. The last case involved the constitionality of section 3 of Republic Act
No. 1186, expressly abolishing “all existing positions of Judges-at-Large and
Cadastral Judges.” There is no similar provision in the case at bar. What is
more, the provision in Ordinance No. 188 transferring the item for thirty-eight
(38) detectives suggests the retention-not the abolition-of the positions of
said detectives.
Besides, in the Ocampo case, seven (7) members of tills Court or a clear
majority thereof voted to declare said section 3 of Republic Act No. 1186
unconstitutional. Only (3) Justices (the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Reyes [A.],
and Mr, Justice Labrador) voted to uphold the legality of said provision. Mr,
Justice Padilla voted with the majority on the lack of power of Congress to
abolish positions of Judges of First Instance, on which there were, therefore,
eight (8) votes, or those required to declare a law unconstitutional. However,
he believed that the law creating the positions of Judges-at-Large and Cadastral
Judges “offends against section 7, Article VIII, of the Constitution.” Being, in
his opinion unconstitutional, said positions were, from his viewpoint, legally
non-existent. In other words, he, in effect, maintained that section 3 of
Republic Act No. 1186 did not abolish any position in the bench, and that it
merely made a formal declaration of such non-existence.
So, too, the Manalang case involved the interpretation of Republic Act No.
761, which “expressly abolished the Placement Bureau,” of which Manalang was
Director. As already adverted to, there is, in the present case, not only no
express abolition, but, also, an implied retention, of the positions in dispute
herein. Although the functions of the Placement Bureau were transferred to the
National Employment Service created in said Act, we held that the latter office
is “different and distinct” from the former, inasmuch as the National Employment
Service was given some functions not vested in said Bureau or any other office.
In the case at bar, the powers and duties conferred by law upon the uniformed
division and the detectives of the Police Department of the City of Cebu are one
and the same. Furthermore, Manalang admitted-in-fact, he alleged-that the
position of Commissioner of the National Employment Service necessitated a “new
appointment”, which is denied by petitioners herein.
The local precedent involving a situation analogous to that of petitioners
herein is that of Brillo vs. Enage,* G.R. No. L-7115 (decided on March 30,
1954), in which we held that the justice of the peace of the municipality of
Tacloban, which was converted into a city, had a right to preside, without a new
appointment, the municipal court of Tacloban, there having been, not an
abolition of the justice of the peace court of Tacloban, but merely a change of
name thereof. Verily,
“A statute, although purporting to abolish municipal office, cannot have the
effect of removing officers holding under the city charter when the act
restores the offices under another name.” (43 C. J. p. 601, citing Malone vs.
Williams, 118 Tenn. 390, 108 S.W. 798, 121 Am SR 1002,)“An ordinance merely changing the name of an incumbent’s position in the city
employ does not create a new position requiring a new appointment.” (43 C.J.,
sec. 976, p. 600, citing Gilmur vs. Seattle, 124 p. 919.)
Moreover, Ordinance No. 188 transferred the item for thirty-eight (38)
detectives to the patrolmen division, but, it did not particularize what
positions, from among the seventy-one (71) detectives then in the service, were
to be affected by the transfer. Respondents seemingly assume that the power to
identify said positions has been given to the Mayor. This would imply, however,
a grant of blanket authority to the local executive, without any qualification
or standard whatsoever to guide him in the exercise of such authority or to
indicate the limits thereof. Thus, respondents’ pretense is premised upon a
supposed delegation of legislative power which even if meant to be made would be
undue and illegal.
Assuming, however, that Ordinance No. 188 proposed to abolish the positions
of thirty-eight (38) detectives whose items were transferred to the division of
patrolmen, what was the reason therefor?
It will be recalled that, in 1953, the Mayor of Cebu City dismissed a good
many members of the secret service force thereof, upon the theory that they held
primarily confidential positions, from which they could be ousted at the
pleasure of the Mayor. Most of the detectives concerned contested judicially the
action of the Mayor, and some of these suits reached the Supreme Court which
consistently sustained the contestants, nullified their dismissal and ordered
their reinstatement. The first decision of this Court thereon was rendered on
October 30, 1953, in Rodriguez vs. Del Rosario (supra), which was followed, on
February 26, 1954, in Mission, et al. vs. Del Rosario, et al. (supra). As a
consequence, the Court of First Instance of Cebu was constrained to adhere to
these precedents, in its following cases, namely: Civil Case No. R-3153,
entitled, “Saavedra vs. Del Rosario,” decided on March 22, 1954; Civil Case No.
R-3161, entitled “Miguel Cabaral vs. Del Rosario”, decided on November 26, 1954;
and Civil Case No. R-3214, entitled “Jose Almeda vs. Del Rosario”, decided on
December 20, 1954. The detectives in whose favor these decisions had been
rendered had to be, and were, reinstated, as directed thereon. Less than two (2)
months after the rendition of the last decision, or on February 9, 1955,
Municipal Ordinance No. 188 was approved, with the item transferring the
appropriation for thirty-eight (38) detectives, at P1,440 per annum each, to the
division of patrolmen, this transfer to take effect retroactively on July 1,
1954.
Why was this transfer made? Was it because the police force needed more
patrolmen, as respondents say? Such could not be the reason, because the chief
of police could have assigned thirty-eight (38) detectives to the uniformed
division, without an amendment to the city budget. As correctly stated by the
City Treasurer of Cebu, whose opinion is invoked by respondent City Mayor:
“The chief of police may assign any member of the police force including
detectives to any duty whenever the exigency of the service so demands, and
where in his judgment it is for the good of public service. He has control and
supervision of the detectives, he may assign them to any duty under his
department.” (See Annex 5 to respondent’s answer.)
In fact, pursuant to section 32 of Commonwealth Act No. 58, said chief of
police has “charge of the police department and everything pertaining thereto,
including the * * * disposition of the city police and detective force.” Thus,
for instance, on May 16, and 21, 1956, former detectives Julian Bercede,
Celestino Bigno, Lamberto Morre, Emilio Pardinilla and Enrique Pareja, who, like
petitioners herein, had been given termination orders, after accepting
appointments as patrolmen, in the uniformed division, tvere reassigned by the
Chief of Police of Cebu City to the secret service division, together with
patrolmen Patricio Cabalda, Terencio Garciano and Manuel Lucenario, despite the
fact that, under Ordinance No. 188, their items belong to the uniformed division
of said department (see Annexes L and L-l to L-3, to the amended petition).
Was the transfer of item in question made in Ordinance No. 188 because
respondent City Mayor felt that the need of additional patrolmen was more or
less permanent? Neither could this be the true reason therefor, because said
City Mayor may transfer the necessary number of detectives from the secret
division to the uniformed division, under section 9 (e) of Commonwealth Act No.
58, reading:
“* * * The Mayor may, in the interest of the service and with the approval of
the Secretary of Interior first had, transfer officers and employees not
appointed by the President of the Philippines from one section, division or
service to another section, division or service within the same department,
without changing the compensation they receive.”
Thus, the enactment of an Ordinance is, and was, unnecessary, either to
detail temporarily, or to transfer permanently, a member of the secret service
division to the uniformed division of the Police Department of the City of Cebu.
At the same time, the officers of said city must” be aware of this, not only
because they are presumed to be familiar with the Charter thereof, but, also,
because said officers have the services of a City Fiscal and a staff of lawyers
to advise them thereon. Now, then, if knowing that, in order to increase the
number of patrolmen, by shifting to the uniformed division the corresponding
number of detectives, an ordinance is unnecessary, what other purpose could
Ordinance No. 188 have had in providing-for the transfer of item in question-on
the assumption that the same involves an abolition of positions-than to cloak a
devise to remove its incumbents (in whom the City Mayor had allegedly lost
confidence) and to circumvent the constitutional and statutory provisions
tending to protect their tenure of office, as well as to defeat the final
judicial decrees directing the reinstatement of petitioners herein, which must
have caused no little embarrassment to the city officers concerned? In such
case, the pertinent provision of Municipal Ordinance No. 188 would be null and
void.
“But where an ordinance purporting to abolish such an office is only a device
for the purpose of removing the incumbent while the office practically still
remains in existence, it is an evasion of the law, and void.” (43 C.J. sec. 978,
p. 600.)“But the right to abolish an unnecessary position cannot be used to conceal
the discharge of an employee in violation of the civil service law or to
circumvent the effect of a decree of the court restraining the city from
removing the incumbent.” (43 C. J. sec. 979, p. 600.)“* * * Tenure of office statutes and civil service statutes do not prevent a
bona fide abolition of the office by the municipality. Moreover, statutes to
protect the tenure of office of veteran soldiers and sailors will not prevent
the abolition of municipal offices. In such cases, however, the office must be
abolished in good faith; and if immediately after the office is abolished
another office is created with substantially the same duties and a different
individual is appointed, or if it otherwise appears that the office was
abolished for personal or political reasons, the courts will interfere.” (37 Am.
Jur., 858; italics ours.)
Indeed, the item in dispute could not have been prompted by the demands of
public service, for the communication to the City Mayor of Cebu, attached to
respondents’ answer as Annex 1, shows that the Acting Chief of Police of Cebu
City considered that the strength of his secret service division-including the
thirty-eight (38) positions of detectives involved in this case-was not
sufficient, and that “there is need of having more secret servicemen to take
charge of the preventive phase” of the police work in said City. In other words,
instead of more patrolmen, what tlie police department needed was more
detectives. This explains why, after the appointment of detectives Bercede,
Bigno, Morre, Pardinilla and Pareja as patrolmen, they had to be reassigned to
the secret service division, together with patrolmen Cabalda, Garciano and
Lucenario.
Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring that the positions held by
petitioners herein on and before May 15, 1956, were not abolished by Municipal
Ordinance No. 188; that petitioners were entitled to remain in office, after
said date; that they should be reinstated to their aforementioned positions and
allowed to continue holding the same, with all rights appurtenant thereto, in
accordance with law; and that they are entitled to collect the corresponding
compensation from May 16, 1956, with costs against respondent City Mayor. It is
so ordered.
Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Reyes, J.B.L., Endencia and Felix, JJ., concur.
*94 Phil., 483.
*93 Phil., 1070.
*94 Phil., 903, 50 Off. Gaz., 2515.
*94 Phil., 732, 50 Off. Gaz., [7], 3100.