PABLO CUNETA, ETC., ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On February 1, 1956, the Municipal Board of Pasay City approved
Resolution No. 36 empowering the city mayor to reorganize the various
departments and offices of the city government to accomplish efficiency
and economy, and to promote, transfer, demote or lay off, as a
consequence thereof, city officials and employees, pursuant to existing
civil service law and regulations. To implement said resolution the
city mayor prepared what is now known as Reorganization Plan No. 5 for
the police department, which was subsequently submitted to and approved
by the municipal board on March 22 of the same year. This
reorganization plan reduced from 92 to 12 the number of detectives in
the aforesaid department.

Upon approval by the municipal
board of said reorganization plan, the city mayor, under date of March
25, 1956, sent a communication to the chief of police directing the
latter to screen the list of detectives and select the 12 who should be
reappointed and retained in the service. Accordingly, the selection was
made and the recommendation submitted.

Appellees herein were
among those not recommended for reappointment. They were notified of
their separation from the service effective as of the close of office
hours of April 25, 1956, without prejudice to their re-appointment
should appropriate funds be available. The city treasurer and city
auditor, upon being furnished with copies of the notice served upon
appellees, refused to pay and pass in audit their salaries after April
25, 1956.

On June 6, 1956, appellees filed before the Court
of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay Branch, a mandamus proceeding to
command the respondent city mayor to reinstate them to their former
rank and positions; to command the city mayor, city treasurer and city
auditor to pay their salaries accruing from the time they were
illegally removed from their office until they are actually reinstated
in the service, and to declare their removal from their rank and
positions as illegal.

After trial the lower court found
appellees’ separation from the service illegal and rendered judgment
against appellants. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the judgment was
affirmed. Appellants come before this Court assigning as errors the
findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.

The issues
raised by appellants in their assignments of error may be boiled down
as follows: that their original petition does not state a cause of
action; that it does not dispute the validity of Resolution No. 36
which authorizes the reorganization of the various departments and
offices of the government of Pasay City; that Reorganization. Plan No.
5 approved by the municipal board of said city to implement said
resolution is valid; that appellees had been legally separated because
their positions had been properly eliminated either in, said plan or in
the budget submitted in connection therewith.

There is no
merit in this appeal. We find that, under the law and precedents on the
matter, appellees were improperly eliminated, and, hence, are entitled
to reinstatement.

It should be noted that appellees at the
time of their removal were holding the positions of detectives who
performed the duties of peace officers and such other duties, as may be
assigned to them by the chief of police, or as may be prescribed by law
or ordinance. As part of the regular police force, they belonged to the
unclassified class of the civil service, and in view of the nature of
their office, their removal can only be accomplished in accordance with
law, particularly paragraph 2, section 20, article IV, Republic Act No.
183, which provides:

“All other officers
and employees of the city whose appointment is not otherwise provided
for by law shall be appointed by the Mayor upon the recommendation of
the corresponding city department head m accordance with the Civil
Service Law, and they shall be suspended or removed in accordance with
said law.”

Our Constitution also protect
their tenure of office when it postulates that “No officer or employee
in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as
provided by law” (Section 4, Article XII). And the mode and manner by
which they may be suspended or removed from office are also prescribed
in the law, particularly section 1, Republic Act No. 557, which in part
provides:

“Section 1. 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, and in such cases, charges
shall be preferred by the provincial governor in matters against any
member of the provincial guards, the city mayor in cases against a
member of the city police, and the municipal mayor in cases involving a
member of the municipal police, and investigated by the provincial
board, the city or municipal council, as the case may be, in public
hearing, and the accused shall be given opportunity to make their
defense. * * * “

Since appellees were
removed from office in disregard of the safeguard prescribed by law for
they were separated without any formal charge having been filed against
them and, if any, without having been given an opportunity to defend
themselves, it is clear that their petition sets forth a good cause of
action.

It is true that the positions which appellees were
holding were eliminated from the reorganization plan adopted by the
city mayor in line with the authority given him to reorganize the
government by the municipal board, but said plan has no valid effect
because it was never submitted to the President for approval as
required by Executive Order No. 175 series of 1938.^[1]
Nor can this void be obviated by the fact that the budget corresponding
to said plan was approved by the office of the President since such
approval cannot imply an express presidential sanction of the overall
reorganization plan. We concur in the following comment of the Court of
Appeals:

“We find no merit in this
contention. A public office should not be deemed abolished by mere
implication. In other words, by the mere approval by the office of the
President of the budget of Pasay City, which was approved by the
Municipal Board on June 25, 1956, it should not be assumed that the
President had also given his express approval to the Reorganization
Plan No. 5 which does not appear to have ever been submitted for his
consideration.”

Wherefore, we affirm the decision appealed from, with out pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, Paredes and Dizon, JJ., concur.

---

^[1]
“No position in any city or municipal police force or in the provincial
guards should be abolished nor may the salary corresponding thereto
reduced without the approval of the President of the Philippines.”