DONATO M. ATEL, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. EMELIO LUMONTAD, JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLANTS.

Atel versus Lumontad

The Case

This is a petition for mandamus filed by Donato Atel against Emelio Lumontad, Junior, as municipal mayor, and Jose Lesigues, over the office of chief of police of Pinamungajan, Cebu. Atel claims that he is the lawful chief of police and that the reinstatement of Lesigues by the new mayor was illegal, and he asks the court to declare the appointment of Lesigues void and to restore him to the position. The case matters because it fixes the rule that administrative charges against a member of the municipal police force must be investigated by the municipal council itself, in a public hearing, and not by a mere committee the council creates for the purpose. It also teaches that a decision of the Civil Service Commission built on an invalid investigation cannot be validated by the mere fact that no appeal was taken from it.

Procedural History

The case began in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, where Atel filed his petition for mandamus. The trial court granted the petition. It reasoned that the decision of the Civil Service Commission finding Lesigues guilty of the charges had already become final because Lesigues did not appeal from it, and on that theory it ordered Lesigues to vacate the position of chief of police in favor of Atel. Lesigues moved for reconsideration, and the motion was denied. Lesigues then interposed an appeal to the Supreme Court, which reversed the decision appealed from.

Facts

Jose Lesigues was appointed Chief of Police of Pinamungajan, Cebu, on March 16, 1949. On May 15, 1952, Donato Atel was appointed corporal of the police force of the same municipality. Sometime in May 1952, the then incumbent mayor, Olegario Ruiz, filed administrative charges against Lesigues for falsification of public documents, neglect of duty, incompetence, insubordination, and electioneering during the last elections, and for this reason Lesigues was suspended as chief of police. The charges were referred to a police committee for investigation, and the committee submitted its report and recommendation to the municipal council. On September 15, 1952, the municipal council approved a resolution adopting the committee's recommendation and resolving to dismiss Lesigues from the service effective from the date of his suspension.

Lesigues appealed the resolution to the Civil Service Commission. In a resolution dated June 7, 1955, the Commission directed the municipal council of Pinamungajan to conduct a reinvestigation in accordance with the interpretation placed by the Supreme Court on Section 1 of Republic Act Number 557, in the sense that the investigation should be conducted by the municipal council and not merely by a committee created by it for the purpose. The municipal council did not comply. It informed the Commission that it was not in a position to conduct a reinvestigation because the records of the case had been lost. On June 18, 1956, the Civil Service Commission rendered a decision finding Lesigues guilty of falsification of public documents, neglect of duty, and electioneering. In the meantime, Atel had been temporarily appointed chief of police effective July 1, 1954, and after the Commission's decision the mayor extended him a new appointment as chief of police effective July 24, 1956, and Atel discharged the duties of that office.

On January 1, 1960, Emelio Lumontad, Junior, assumed the position of Municipal Mayor of Pinamungajan. Lesigues wrote him a letter requesting a reinvestigation of his case and asking that he be reinstated. Acting favorably on the request, Mayor Lumontad reinstated Lesigues as chief of police effective January 25, 1960, and Atel turned over the office to the reinstated chief of police. Atel then filed this petition for mandamus, praying that the appointment of Lesigues be declared illegal and that he be reinstated in his place. The respondents answered that the investigation of Lesigues was illegal because it was conducted not by the municipal council but merely by a police committee, contrary to law and to the decision of the Supreme Court on the matter.

Issues

• Whether or not the administrative investigation of Jose Lesigues, conducted by a police committee created by the municipal council rather than by the municipal council itself, was valid.
• Whether or not the decision of the Civil Service Commission finding Lesigues guilty became final and conclusive because Lesigues did not appeal from it.
• Whether or not the reinstatement of Lesigues by Mayor Lumontad was lawful, such that Atel is entitled to the writ of mandamus.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Republic Act Number 557 provides:

That whenever charges are preferred against, among others, a member of the municipal police force the same shall be investigated by the municipal council in a public hearing wherein the accused shall be given an opportunity to make his defense.

This provision is the measure of a valid administrative investigation of a police officer, and the Court holds that it is mandatory, so that an investigation conducted by a mere committee of the council does not satisfy it.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the investigation was invalid. Section 1 of Republic Act Number 557 requires that the charges be investigated by the municipal council in a public hearing, and the Court had declared this provision mandatory in several cases. The Court quoted its ruling in Senarillos versus Hermosisima:

That the investigation of police officers under Republic Act No. 557 (as distinguished from sec 2272 of the Adm. Code) must be conducted by the council itself, and not by a mere committee thereof, is now established jurisprudence and no longer open to question since our decision in Festejo vs. Mayor of Nabua, 96 Phil., 286; 51 Off. Gaz., p. 121, reaffirmed in subsequent decisions.

The Court explained that while it had once held, in Santos versus Mendoza, that investigation by a committee of the council was valid, the law had been changed. Republic Act Number 667 eliminated the provision authorizing investigation by a committee of the council, and the Court held that the change meant that the investigation should be by the council itself. The police committee constituted by the municipal council therefore had no jurisdiction to investigate Lesigues, and the decision against him was invalid even if concurred in by the rest of the councilors. The subsequent reaffirmation of that decision by the Civil Service authorities could not validate a proceeding that was illegal and void from the beginning.

On the second issue, the Court held that the finality of the Commission's decision was of no moment. The decision of the Civil Service Commission was based on an invalid decision of a police committee of investigation, and a final judgment resting on such an invalid proceeding cannot stand. The Court recalled that when the municipal council approved its resolution of September 15, 1952, and submitted it to the Civil Service Commission, the Commission directed a reinvestigation in accordance with Section 1 of Republic Act Number 557 as interpreted by the Court, but the directive was not followed for the flimsy reason that the records had been lost. That excuse, the Court said, is no valid justification to disregard the mandate of the law as interpreted by the Court.

On the third issue, it follows that the trial court erred in granting the petition. Since the investigation and the decision built upon it were invalid, the premise of Atel's claim — that Lesigues had been validly dismissed and that Atel had been validly appointed in his place — could not be sustained, and the decision appealed from had to be reversed.

Doctrine

Under Section 1 of Republic Act Number 557, administrative charges against a member of the municipal police force must be investigated by the municipal council itself, in a public hearing where the accused is given an opportunity to make his defense. Investigation by a mere committee created by the council is void for lack of jurisdiction, and the subsequent approval or reaffirmation of the committee's findings by the council or by the Civil Service Commission cannot cure the defect. A decision of the Civil Service Commission that rests on such an invalid investigation is itself invalid, and the fact that the officer did not appeal from it does not make it final and conclusive. The duty to conduct the reinvestigation as directed by the Commission cannot be evaded by the excuse that the records of the case have been lost.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from, without costs, so that Lesigues prevailed and Atel's petition for mandamus did not prosper.

Remember This

Memorize the line that the investigation of police officers under Republic Act Number 557 must be conducted by the council itself, and not by a mere committee thereof. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory nature of that investigation and the rule that a final decision of the Civil Service Commission cannot validate a proceeding that was void from the beginning.