GREGORIO Y. ROMERO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. THE HONORABLE MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF BOLJOON, CEBU, ELIAS GOMERA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

Romero versus the Municipal Mayor of Boljoon

The Case

This is the case of Romero versus the Municipal Mayor of Boljoon. Gregorio Romero, the Chief of Police of Boljoon, Cebu, brought an action for mandamus, certiorari and prohibition, with damages, against the Municipal Mayor, the Municipality, its Council and its Treasurer, after he was suspended, dismissed, and haled before the Municipal Council in three separate administrative cases. The case matters because it fixes the rule on the reinstatement of a suspended policeman whose administrative case has been decided within the sixty-day period but who then appeals to the Commissioner of Civil Service. It teaches that the special law for policemen, not the general Civil Service law, governs, and that a policeman cannot demand reinstatement when the delay is of his own making.

Procedural History

Romero filed his petition with the Court of First Instance of Cebu. After trial, that court rendered judgment granting the writ of mandamus in the first cause of action, directing the respondents to reinstate Romero immediately as Chief of Police, subject to the result of his appeal in the administrative case pending before the Civil Service Commission. It declared null and void the proceedings and resolution of the Municipal Council dismissing him for failure to pay his just debt. It dismissed the petition for prohibition in the fourth administrative case, and directed the respondent either to dismiss that case or to proceed with it. No costs and no damages were awarded.

The Municipal Mayor, the Municipality, its Council and its Treasurer appealed to the Supreme Court. The only issue pressed on appeal was whether Romero was entitled to reinstatement pending the final determination of his appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Service.

Facts

Gregorio Romero, a civil service eligible, was appointed Chief of Police of Boljoon, Cebu, on January 23, 1954. On August 16, 1962, the Municipal Mayor suspended him from office after Administrative Case No. 2 was filed against him with the Municipal Council for serious irregularities in the performance of official duties. After several postponements at Romero's own instance, the Council, on November 16, 1962, approved a resolution finding him guilty and dismissing him from office effective August 16, 1962, the date of his preventive suspension. Romero then appealed to the Commissioner of Civil Service.

On December 14, 1962, Romero asked the Mayor for immediate reinstatement, invoking the sixty-day limit on preventive suspension of municipal policemen. The Mayor denied the request. Meanwhile, on August 23, 1962, the Villarica Finance Company filed Administrative Case No. 3 against Romero for alleged wilful neglect to pay his just obligation. Romero moved to dismiss on the ground that the Municipal Council had no jurisdiction, as the charges were not filed by the Municipal Mayor and the subject matter was not a ground for suspension or removal under the law. The Council denied the motion, heard the case ex parte when Romero failed to appear, and on December 17, 1962, ordered his dismissal.

On October 16, 1962, a fourth administrative complaint was filed by the Municipal Mayor for alleged gross misconduct and dishonesty, in that Romero refused to record a complaint in the police blotter and failed to act on it. Romero moved to dismiss, claiming discretion as Chief of Police and deputy of the Provincial Fiscal. The Council denied the motion, but upon his failure to appear, resolved to postpone the hearing indefinitely until the final determination of Administrative Case No. 2. On January 26, 1963, Romero filed the present petition.

Issues

• Whether or not a suspended municipal policeman who has been found guilty and dismissed within the sixty-day period, and who then appeals to the Commissioner of Civil Service, is entitled to reinstatement pending final determination of that appeal.
• Whether or not Section 35 of the Civil Service Act of 1959, a general law, has repealed or modified Section 3 of Republic Act No. 557, the special law governing provincial guards, city police and municipal police.

Applicable Provisions

Section 3 of Republic Act No. 557, the special law for provincial guards, city police and municipal police, limits the period of preventive suspension, and its last part, reproduced in the Police Act of 1966, provides:

Provided, however, That if the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the fault, negligence, or petition of the respondent, the period of the delay shall not be counted in computing the period of suspension herein provided. The respondent shall be entitled to his salary for the period of suspension upon exoneration.

This provision bears on the case because it makes the sixty-day period yield to the respondent's own fault or petition, so that the delay caused by his appeal is not counted against the government.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Romero was not entitled to reinstatement pending appeal. It was an admitted fact that the Municipal Council decided Administrative Case No. 2 within the sixty-day period, after deducting the delay chargeable against Romero. The Court applied its earlier ruling in Alacar versus the City Mayor, quoting Martinez versus the Municipal Mayor of Labason:

Such resolution would have decided the matter finally if petitioner had not filed a notice of appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Service. Therefore, his case was not finally disposed of because of his own voluntary act of appealing, which amounted to a petition for review. Such petition excused any delay in the definite disposition of the charges.

The Court added that it would be contrary to the spirit of mandamus proceedings to compel reinstatement of suspended officers after they had been found guilty and dropped from the service, for such an officer did not have a clear legal right enforceable by mandamus.

On the second issue, the Court held that the law applicable is Section 3 of Republic Act No. 557, not Section 35 of Republic Act No. 2260, and that no provision of the latter had repealed the former. Republic Act No. 2260 is a general law covering public officials and employees, civil service eligibles or not, while Republic Act No. 557 is a special law applying only to provincial guards, city and municipal policemen with civil service eligibility. The Court stated the rule:

In case of conflict between the two kinds of legislative enactment, the rule is that the one general in character shall not be deemed to have repealed the special law unless that is expressly and clearly provided in the former.

The reason is that the special law evinces the particular legislative intent more clearly. The Court also noted that the Police Act of 1966 reproduced the last part of Section 3 of Republic Act No. 557, confirming that it had not been repealed.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, under Republic Act No. 557, a suspended municipal policeman is entitled to reinstatement if the administrative case against him has not been finally decided within sixty days after his preventive suspension. Second, that reinstatement cannot be demanded if the delay in the disposition of his case is due to his own fault or petition, as when the cause of the delay is his appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Service. Third, a general law, such as the Civil Service Act of 1959, does not repeal a special law, such as Republic Act No. 557, unless the repeal is expressly and clearly provided, because the special law evinces the particular legislative intent more clearly. Fourth, mandamus will not issue to reinstate an officer already found guilty and dropped from the service, for he has no clear legal right, and the court's discretion should not be exercised in a way injurious to public interest.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the lower court insofar as it directed the appellants to reinstate Romero immediately as Chief of Police of Boljoon, Cebu, subject to the result of his appeal, with costs against him.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a suspended policeman found guilty within sixty days cannot demand reinstatement pending his own appeal, because the delay is due to his own petition. Examiners like to use this case to test the rule on preventive suspension under Republic Act No. 557 and the doctrine that a general law does not repeal a special law absent an express and clear provision.