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

Cuneta versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is the case of Cuneta versus Court of Appeals. The petitioners are the City Mayor of Pasay City and the other city officials, and the respondents are the detectives of the Pasay City police force who were separated from the service when the city government carried out a reorganization. The detectives brought a mandamus proceeding to compel their reinstatement and the payment of their salaries, and to have their removal declared illegal. The case matters because it fixes the rule that a public office is not abolished by mere implication, and that a reorganization plan which touches the police force is void unless it receives the express approval of the President.

Procedural History

The detectives filed a petition for mandamus before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasay Branch, against the city mayor, the city treasurer, and the city auditor. After trial, the lower court found that their separation from the service was illegal and rendered judgment against the city officials. The city officials appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the lower court. The city officials then came before the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the findings and conclusions of the Court of Appeals.

Facts

On the first of February, 1956, the Municipal Board of Pasay City approved a resolution 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 city officials and employees as a consequence, pursuant to existing civil service law and regulations. To implement that resolution, the city mayor prepared Reorganization Plan Number 5 for the police department, which the municipal board approved on the twenty-second of March of the same year. The plan reduced the number of detectives in the department from ninety-two to twelve.

Upon approval of the plan, the city mayor directed the chief of police to screen the list of detectives and to select the twelve who should be reappointed and retained. The selection was made and the recommendation submitted. The detectives in this case were among those not recommended for reappointment. They were notified of their separation from the service effective as of the close of office hours on the twenty-fifth of April, 1956, without prejudice to reappointment should funds become available. When furnished copies of the notices, the city treasurer and the city auditor refused to pay and to pass in audit their salaries after that date.

On the sixth of June, 1956, the detectives filed the mandamus proceeding. They asked that the city mayor be commanded to reinstate them to their former rank and positions, that the city mayor, city treasurer, and city auditor be commanded to pay their salaries from the time of their removal until actual reinstatement, and that their removal be declared illegal.

Issues

• Whether or not the petition of the detectives states a cause of action.
• Whether or not the detectives were legally separated from the service by reason of the reorganization plan and the corresponding budget.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 2, Section 20, Article IV of Republic Act Number 183 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 in accordance with the Civil Service Law, and they shall be suspended or removed in accordance with said law.

This provision places the detectives, as members of the regular police force in the unclassified civil service, under the protection of the civil service law as to suspension and removal.

Section 4, Article XII of the Constitution provides:

No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law.

This is the constitutional guarantee of security of tenure that the removal of the detectives disregarded.

Section 1 of Republic Act Number 557 provides:

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.

This provision prescribes the mode and manner of removing members of the city police, which the city officials did not follow.

Executive Order Number 175, series of 1938, provides:

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.

This is the requirement of presidential approval that the reorganization plan failed to satisfy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition states a good cause of action. The detectives were holding the positions of detectives who performed the duties of peace officers. As part of the regular police force, they belonged to the unclassified class of the civil service, and their removal could only be accomplished in accordance with law. Since they were separated without any formal charge having been filed against them, and, if any, without having been given an opportunity to defend themselves, the safeguard prescribed by law was disregarded.

On the second issue, the Court held that the detectives were improperly eliminated and are entitled to reinstatement. It is true that their positions were eliminated from the reorganization plan, but the plan has no valid effect because it was never submitted to the President for approval as required by Executive Order Number 175. Nor can this void be obviated by the fact that the budget corresponding to the plan was approved by the office of the President, since such approval cannot imply an express presidential sanction of the overall reorganization plan. The Court adopted the 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.

Doctrine

A public office is not deemed abolished by mere implication. The approval by the office of the President of a city budget does not amount to express approval of a reorganization plan that was never submitted to the President for consideration. Under Executive Order Number 175, no position in a city or municipal police force may be abolished, and no salary corresponding thereto reduced, without the approval of the President. Members of the city police belong to the unclassified civil service and may be removed only for the causes and in the manner prescribed by Republic Act Number 557, with formal charges, a public hearing, and an opportunity to defend, consistent with the constitutional guarantee that no officer or employee in the civil service shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided by law.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision appealed from, without pronouncement as to costs, and the detectives were entitled to reinstatement.

Remember This

A public office is not abolished by mere implication, and a police reorganization plan is void without the express approval of the President. Examiners use this case to test the security of tenure of police officers under the civil service law and the requirement of presidential approval before abolishing positions in a city police force.