MAMERTO MISSION, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. VICENTE S. DEL ROSARIO, AS ACTING MAYOR OF CEBU CITY, FELIPE B. PAREJA, AS CITY TREASURER AND MARTIN KINTANAR, AS CITY AUDITOR, RESPOND…

Petitioners were detectives in the Police Department of the City of
Cebu duly appointed by the Mayor of the city. Some of the appointees
were civil service eligibles. Their rank, length of service, and
efficiency rating appear in the certification attached to the petition.

On May 11, 12, and 19, 1953, petitioners were notified by the Mayor
that they had been removed because he has lost his confidence in them.
Following their removal, the City Treasurer and City Auditor topped the
payment of their salaries, and after their positions had been declared
vacant because of their removal, the City Mayor immediately filled them
with new appointees who are presently discharging the functions and
duties appertaining thereto.

Considering that their removal was made in violation of the law and
of the Constitution which protect those who are in the civil service,
petitioners filed the present petition for mandamus in this Court
praying that their removal be declared illegal and without effect and
that their reinstatement be ordered and their salaries paid from the
date of their removal up to the time of their reinstatement.

Respondents in their answer tried to justify the removal of
petitioners contending that, their positions being primarily
confidential, their removal can be effected under Executive Order No.
264 of the President of the Philippines, on the ground of lack of trust
or confidence. They claim that the Mayor of Cebu City has lost
confidence in them, and so he separated them from the service upon due
notice.

The only issue involved in this petition hinges on the determination
of the nature of the positions held by petitioners at the time of their
removal. Petitioners contend that, having been appointed as detectives,
they should be regarded as members of the Police Department of Cebu
City and, therefore, they are members of the City Police. As
such they can only be removed in line with the procedure laid down in
Republic Act No. 557. On the other hand, respondents contend that
petitioners are not members of the police force, but of the .detective
force, of the City of Cebu, and, therefore, their removal is governed
by Executive Order No. 264.

Let us first make a brief outline of the procedure concerning
removal laid down in- the legislation invoked by the parties before
passing on to determine the nature of the positions held by petitioners.

Section 1 of Republic Act No. 557 provides, in so far as may be pertinent to their case, that the members of the city police
shall not be removed “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 city
mayor and investigated by the city council in a public hearing, and the
accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense. A copy of the
charges shall be furnished the accused and the investigating body shall
try the case within ten days from notice. The trial shall be finished
within a reasonable time, and the investigating body shall decide the
case within fifteen days from the time the case is submitted for
decision. The decision of the city council shall be appealable to the
Commission of Civil Service.

Executive Order No. 264, on the other hand, prescribes a more
summary procedure. It applies to secret service agents or detectives
and provides in a general way that the appointing officer may terminate
the services of the persons appointed if he deems it necessary because
of lack of trust or confidence and if the person to be separated is a
civil service eligible, the advice of his separation shall state the
reasons therefor. Under this procedure no investigation is necessary,
it being sufficient that the appointee be notified of his separation
based on lack of confidence on the part of the appointing officer.

An analysis of the pertinent provisions of the Charter of the City
of Cebu (Commonwealth Act No. 58) will reveal that the position of a
detective comes under the police department of the city. This is
clearly deducible from the provisions of sections 32, 34 and 35.
Section 32 creates the position of Chief of Police “who shall have
charge of the police department and everything pertaining thereto,
including the organization, government, discipline, and disposition of
the city police and detective force.” Section 34 creates the
position of the Chief of the Secret Service who shall, under the Chief
of Police, “have charge of the detective work of the department and of
the detective force of the city, and shall perform such other duties as
may be assigned to him by the Chief of Police.” And section 35
classifies the Chief of Police and Assistant Chief of Police, the Chief
of the Secret Service and all officers and members of the city police
and detective force as peace officers. Under this set-up it is clear
that, with few exceptions, both policemen and detectives perform common
functions and duties and both belong to the police department. In
contemplation of law therefore both shall be considered as members of
the police force of the City of Cebu.

The authorities in the United States are of the same import. Thus,
“The word ‘detective’, as commonly understood, is defined as one of a
body of police officers, usually dressed in plain clothes, to whom is
entrusted the detection of crimes and the apprehension of the
offenders, or a policeman whose business is to detect wrongs by
adroitly investigating their haunts and habits.” [Grand Rapids & I.
Ry. Co. vs King, 83 N. E. 778, 780, 41 Ind. App. 707, citing Am. Diet,
and Webst. Diet. (Vol. 12, Words and Phrases, p. 312.)] The term
“policemen” may include detectives (62 C. J. S., p. 1091). And “the
term ‘police’ has been defined as an organized civil force for
maintaining order, preventing and detecting crimes, and enforcing the
laws, the body of men by which the municipal law, and regulations of a
city, town, or district are enforced.” (Vol. 62, C. J. S., p. 1050.)

It appearing that petitioners, as detectives, or members of the
police force of Cebu City, were separated from the service not for any
of the grounds enumerated in Republic Act No. 557, and without the
benefit of investigation or trial therein prescribed, the conclusion is
inescapable that their removal is illegal and of no valid effect. In
this sense the provisions of Executive Order No, 264 of the President
of the Philippines should be deemed as having been impliedly repealed
in so far as they may be inconsistent with the provisions of said Act. (See
sec. 6, Republic Act No. 557.) This interpretation is the more
justified considering the rank and length of service of many of the
petitioners involved. The great majority of them had been in the
service for 6 years, one for 9 years, one for 11 years, one for 14
years and one even for 31 years with an efficiency rating which is both
commendable and satisfactory These data give an inkling that their
separation is due to causes other than those recognized by law.

Wherefore, the petition is granted, without pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, Jugo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Diokno, JJ., concur.