IGNACIO LLANCO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. HON. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance
of Manila the dispositive part of which reads as follows:

“Wherefore, the petition for certiorari and mandamus filed by
Ignacio Llanco is hereby granted, declaring all proceedings taken by the
respondents in the suspension and discharge of the petitioner to be
null and void, and ordering the respondents Mayor, Chief of Police, and
Presiding Officer of the Police Summary Court of the City of Manila, or
their successors, to reinstate the said petitioner Ignacio Llanco as
patrolman in the Manila Police Department and to pay him his salary at
the rate of P135 a month from July 6, 1951, when he was illegally
discharged from the service, until his reinstatement as patrolman in the
Police Department of the City of Manila.”

The petitioner-appellee, a member of the Manila Police
Department, was dismissed from the service by the respondent Mayor on
June 26, 1951, on recommendation of the summary court of the Manila
Police Department which conducted the investigation of certain
administrative charges against the appellee. The main issue raised in
the present appeal is whether, as held by the lower court, section 22 of
Republic Act No. 409, known as the Revised Charter of the City of
Manila, had been repealed by Republic Act No. 557 which provides that
charges against members of city police shall be preferred by the City
Mayor and investigated by the Municipal Board. In G.R. No. L-5009,
Manuel vs. de la Fuente, et al., decided on November 29, 1952, we
already held that Republic Act No. 557 has repealed or modified section
22 of Republic Act No. 409, insofar as the power of investigation of
members of the Manila Police Department is concerned. In said case we
found that the Municipal Board has been granted the exclusive power to
investigate, with the Mayor being conferred only the power to prefer
charges against any member of the city police, although the Mayor, for
the purpose of determining whether he should exercise the power of
suspension conferred upon him by Republic Act No. 557, may conduct his
own investigation, but this inquiry cannot replace the investigation
required to be conducted by the Municipal Board which should form the
basis for final administrative action or decision by said Board
appealable to the Commissioner of Civil Service. The investigation
conducted by the summary court of the Manila Police Department in the
case at bar and the removal based thereon not being in conformity with
the provisions of Republic Act No. 557, the same must be held — as in
the case of Manuel vs. de la Fuente, et al., supra — to be
of no force and effect.

Counsel for the appellant has intimated — though not raised in
respondents’ answer in the court below — that Republic Act No. 557 would
be rendered unconstitutional if construed as repealing section 22 of
Republic Act No. 409, because while its title speaks of “the suspension
or removal of members of the provincial governor, city mayor or
municipal mayor,” the body of the Act vests the same power in the
provincial board and municipal or city council, in violation of section
21 of Article VI of the Constitution providing that no bill which may be
enacted into law shall embody more than one subject which shall be
expressed in the title of the bill. From a reading of Republic Act No.
557, however, it is plain that the provincial governor, city mayor and
municipal mayor are conferred the power of suspension conformably to the
provisions thereof, and although the Act vests the power of
investigation in the provincial board and municipal or city council, it
does not provide that the power or removal is in said bodies. Hence, it
cannot be argued that the subject as expressed in the title is not the
same as that embodied in the body of the Act.

Wherefore, the appealed decision is hereby affirmed and it is
so ordered without costs.

Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, Reyes,
Jugo, Bautista Angelo and Labrador, JJ., concur.