EMILIO ESPIRITU, ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS, VS. VALERIANO FUGOSO ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.

Appellants instituted this quo warranto proceedings to seek
reinstatement in the positions of police officers they were occupying in the
Manila Police Department at the time the Pacific War broke out.

At the time this case was decided in the lower court on September 30, 1947,
with the exception of Bias Pineda and Wenceslao Ealdama, appellants had already
been reinstated in the service and appointed to the respective offices they were
occupying prior to the outbreak of the war. According to the lower court, Pineda
and Ealdama were denied reinstatement for they had been removed from the service
for cause.

This case was heard on January 10, 1948, on which date the city fiscal and
assistant fiscals appearing for appellees filed a petition for the dismissal of
the case upon the fact that all petitioners have been reinstated and are now
occupying the respective positions they had at the outbreak of the war,
including Bias Pineda and Wenceslao Ealdama, as certified in the accompanying
sworn statement of Florencia Catindig, Major and administrative officer of the
Manila Police Department, and supported by the joint affidavit of Pineda and
Ealdama, where both asserted that they had been reinstated, except that their
salaries have not been adjusted because of lack of appropriation and that, on
account of the willingness of the administration to restore them to their
previously held ranks, obstructed only by the absence of the corresponding
appropriations, they are no longer interested in this quo warranto
proceedings.

Appellants’ lawyers filed on January 19, 1948, manifestation to the effect
that, according to a letter they received from Ealdama, Pineda and Ealdama did
not sign voluntarily their affidavit of January 10, 1948.

Undoubtedly, the letter of Ealdama alone cannot nullify the affidavit that he
and Pineda have subscribed and sworn before a notary public on January 10, 1943.
Ealdama’s allegation that he signed the affidavit very reluctantly and that he
did not sign it under oath cannot be taken seriously, not being supported by his
oath nor corroborated by Pineda, his co-signer of the affidavit, aside from the
consideration that a police officer, such as Ealdama, trained to face all kinds
of dangers in the performance of his official duties, cannot be believed to have
succumbed to an alleged fear of future consequences so as to sign an affidavit
against his will.

Furthermore, appellants have not disputed appellee’s allegation that Pineda
and Ealdama have also been reinstated.

The reinstatement of all of the
appellants has made this proceedings academic.

Appellants alleged that the lower court erred in not declaring
unconstitutional Commonwealth Act No. 698.

The lower court, invoking the provision of Sec. 10 of Article VIII of the
Constitution, expressed the opinion that the Constitution has lodged the power
to declare law unconstitutional exclusively upon the Supreme Court, and
consequently, refrained from passing upon the constitutionality of Commonwealth
Act No. 698. There is nothing in section 10 of Article VIII of the Constitution
from which it can be concluded that the power to declare a law unconstitutional
belongs exclusively to the Supreme Court. The section provides only for the
procedure that the Supreme Court should follow when such a question is presented
before it.

Appellants adduced strong arguments against the constitutionality of
Commonwealth Act No. 698, but now the question has become moot, because of the
enactment on June 15, 1948 of Republic Act No. 271, expressly repealing
Commonwealth Act No. 698.

The case is dismissed without costs.

Ozaeta, Paras, Feria,
Briones, and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

Moran, C. J.,
concurs in the result.

Pablo, M., conforme con la parte
dispositiva.

Tuason, J.:

I concur in this decision except the
statement that “appellants adduced strong arguments against the constitutionality
of Commonwealth Act No. 698.” Althought this Act has been repealed it is
inadvisable to express an opinion on its constitutionality as similar legislation
might be enacted or contemplated.