ANTOLIN GALENO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, VS. REINERIO TICAO IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ILOILO, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE.

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First In­stance of Iloilo,
Judge F. Imperial Reyes, presiding, in Civil Case No. 6215, dismissing the
petition for man­damus, filed by petitioner-appellant Antolin
Galeno against respondent-appellee
Mayor Reinerio Ticao of the
City of Iloilo, to compel the latter to prefer adminis­trative charges before
the City Board against a captain of detectives in the police force of the City.

The facts are undisputed. 
On October 16, 1962,
pe­titioner Antolin Galeno
sent a letter to the City Board of the City of Iloilo,
complaining against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde,
charging him with grave miscon­duct as a police officer in connection with an
incident between them which occurred in the afternoon of October 8, 1962. 
The letter was not under oath, nor was it accompanied by any sworn
statement.  A copy of that letter was
furnished respondent City Mayor.  The
City Board of Iloilo, by resolution, furnished a copy of the letter to
respondent City Mayor “requesting appropriate action.” On November 1, 1962, respondent City
Mayor endorsed the letter to the Chief of Police of the City of Iloilo,
with instructions that Captain Rafael D. Lavente,
Chief of the Patrol Division and Legal Officer of the Police Depart­ment of the
City conduct an investigation on the com­plaint contained in said letter.  After conducting the corresponding
investigation, Captain Rafael D. Lavente sub­mitted,
through the Chief of Police, to respondent Mayor a report, dated November 6, 1962, recommending
dismissal of the complaint.

On November 27, 1962, petitioner wrote an amended
letter-complaint, addressed to respondent Mayor, reiterat­ing the same
allegations contained in his letter to the City Board of October 16; 1962.  This time petitioner’s amended letter was
under oath but, like his former let­ter-complaint, it was not accompanied by
any sworn state­ment.  On November 28, 1962 respondent Mayor
answered peti­tioner, attaching therewith a copy of the report submitted by
Captain Rafael D. Lavente.

On November 29, 1962, Attorney German Lopez, in be­half of the
petitioner, wrote a letter to respondent Mayor questioning the propriety of
respondent’s action in endorsing petitioner’s letter-complaint to the Legal Of­ficer
of the Iloilo City Police Department for investiga­tion, instead of endorsing
same to the City Board; and at the same time complaining that petitioner was
not given a chance to be heard by Captain Lavente.  Atty. Lopez re­quested respondent Mayor to
prefer administrative charges against Detective Captain Emeterio
Verde before the City Board, on the basis of petitioner’s letter-complaint of October 16, 1962 and his sworn
amended letter-complaint of November
27, 1962.

The record shows that on October 8, 1962, petitioner Antolin Galeno filed a complaint
with the Office of the City Fiscal of Iloilo against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde for threats and slander in connection with
the same incident which was the basis of his complaint against the same police
officer, as stated in his letter-complaint of October 16, 1962 to the City
Board and of his amended let­ter-complaint of November 27, 1962 addressed to
respondent City Mayor.  It appears that
after due investigation Assistant City Fiscal Vicente P. Gengos
dismissed the com­plaint for insufficiency of evidence.

On December 10, 1962
respondent Mayor answered the letter of Atty. Lopez of November 29, 1962, stating “that no
administrative case against any member of the Iloilo City Police Force can be
filed without ascertaining the truth of the complaint, unless said member of
the police force had been accused in court of any felony or violation of
law.” Respondent Mayor further stated, in bolstering his refusal to prefer
charges against Detective Captain Verde, that he had been informed that Fiscal
Vicente Gengos dismissed the criminal complaint
against Captain Emeterio Verde after conducting a
preliminary investigation, and added: “Under the present circumstances the
undersigned cannot file said administrative case considering that the Office of
the Chief of Police of the City of Iloilo had submitted an investigation report
recommending dismissal of said charge.”

In view of the refusal of respondent Mayor to fire the
administrative charges, petitioner filed, on January 22, 1963, before the Court
of First Instance of Iloilo a petition for mandamus, alleging refusal of
respondent Mayor to perform a “ministerial duty” to prefer charges
with the Municipal Board of Iloilo City against the said Detective Captain Emeterio Verde in spite of the demands made on him by the
petitioner, to the damage and pre­judice of the latter.  The petition prayed that respondent Mayor be
ordered to prefer charges with, or endorse the sworn letter-complaint of November 27, 1962 of petitioner to,
the City Board of Iloilo City for its appropriate action in accordance with
law, to pay petitioner the sum of P3,000.00 for moral
damages, P500.00 for attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit.

After hearing, the trial court, on November 20, 1963, rendered a decision dismissing the
petition.  Hence, this
appeal.

The question to be resolved in this case is:  Under Section 1 of Republic Act 557, upon the
mere filing by any person or entity with the city mayor of a complaint against
a city police officer, is it the mandatory duty of the city mayor to prefer
charges against the police officer with the city council?

We rule that it is not mandatory, and so mandamus will not lie to
compel the city mayor to prefer the charges against a police officer with the
city council.  We fully concur with the
view of the learned trial judge when he resolved this question, as follows:

“En apoyo de la solicitud, la representacion del solicitante sostiene que, des-pues de recibir las dos cartas del solici­tante (Exhs.
A y C), el recurrido tenia el deber ministerial de formular cargos contra el secreta
Emeterio Verde.  La del
recurrido sostiene lo contrario que el recurrido tiene discrecion de formular cargos o
no, de­pendiendo de si hay pruebas o no para es­tablecer dichos cargos.

“Despues de estudiadas las pruebas en autos, el Juzgado encuentra que la preten­sion del solicitantees insostenible.

“Antes de la aprobacion
de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica,
el Art. 2272 del
Codigo Administrativo Revisado, que habla
de la presentacion de cargos contra un policia y de la investigacion de dichos cargos, dice lo siguiente;

“Section 2272.  Members of the mu­nicipal police shall not be
removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be discharged 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 under oath by the mayor or by any other person and
investigated by the municipal coun­cil, or a committee of three councilors,
designated for said purpose by a majo­rity of the council, in public hearing
and the accused shall be given oppor­tunity to make their defense.”
(Italics ours)

“El Art. 1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Repub­lica, que ahora habla de la presentacion de cargos contra un policia y de su investigacion, reza como sigue:

“Members of the provincial guards, city police and municipal
police shall not be removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be
discharged, 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 provincial governor in matters
against any member of the provincial guards, the city mayor in cases against
a member of the city police, and the munici­pal mayor in cases involving a
member of the municipal police, and investiga­ted by the provincial board, the
city or municipal council, as the case may be, in public hearing, and the
accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense.  (italics ours)

“Mientras segun el Art. 2272 del Codigo
Adminis­trativo Revisado, cualquier ciudadano podia for­mular cargos contra un policia,
esta facultad, con­ferida a un ciudadano cualquiera, fue omitida en la disposicion del Art.
1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica.  Tal omision es significativa.  Al omi­tir en la disposicion del Art. 1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica la facultad de un ciudadano
cual­quiera de formular
cargos contra un policia, el Congreso,
indudablemente, ha tratado
de librar a un policia de
la molestia de tener que afrontar car­gos maliciosos, arbitrarios y sin meritos.  Si esto es
asi, no puede
sostenerse con razon que el re­currido, a mera peticion de un ciudadano, esta ob­ligado a formular cargos
contra el secreta Emeterio
Verde sin cerciorarse siquiera
de si la peticion o queja es meritoria
o no.  Ademas,
no puede concebirse que, al aprobar la Ley No. 557 de la Repub­lica, el Congreso ha tratado de convertir a un Alcalde,
sobretodo de un Alcalde de una Ciudad, como
lo es el recurrido, como un mero
instrumen­to de un ciudadano.

“Del lenguaje usado en la redaccion del Art. 1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica, no puede decirse que,
previa peticion simple de
un ciudadano cualquiera, un
Alcalde tiene la obligaci6n
minis­terial de formular cargos contra un policfa, a peticion de un ciudadano, sin cerciorar se siquiera de si dichos cargos son o no meritorios.

“Ademas, consultado
sobre si el formular cargos contra un policfa,
a peticion de un ciudadano,
es mandatorio o discrecional de parte de un Alcalde, la oficina del
“Head, Local Governments and Civil Affairs Office, Office of the
President, Malacañang, Manila”, que tiene supervision por no decir control, de los gobiernos locales, en su endoso de fecha
26 de abril de 1963, dijo
lo siguience:

x             x          x          x

As to whether a City Mayor should file with the Municipal Board a
complaint against a member of the city police is for him to decide as he is
vested exclu­sively by Republic Act No. 557 with such discretion.

“A juzgar por
dicha opinion, el Alcalde tiene discretion de formular
cargos o no contra un policia.

“De las pruebas en autos es aparente que el recurrido se nego a formular cargos contra el secreta
Emeterio Verde porque el
Capitan Rafael D. Lavente, recommendo
el sobreseimiento de la queja
del solicitante contenida
en su prime­ra carta (Exh. A) como resultado de su investiga­cion practicada (Exh. 6) y tambien porque la ofi­cina del Fiscal de la Ciudad donde
el solicitante habia acudido para que
se incoaran causas crimi­nales contra el secreta Emeterio Verde como re­sultado del mismo incidente de la tarde del 8 de Octubre de 1962, objeto de las dos cartas tantas veces mencionadas
del solicitante (Exhs. A y C), tambien se nego
a tomar accion, por falter de pruebas, contra dicho secreta.

“Como ya se dijo arriba,
despues de recibir las dos cartas del recurrido,
una de fecha 28 de noviembre de 1962, dirigida al solicitante (Exh. 2), y otra de fecha 10 de diciembre de 1962, dirigida al abogado Sr. Lopez (G), en representaci6n del soli­citante (Exh. 3), la presente solicitud de mandamus
fug incoada sin que el solicitante haya acudido al “Head, Local Governments and Civil Affairs
Office, Office of the Presi­dent, Malacañang,
Manila”, lo que decidi­damente
demuestra que el solicitante no ha agotado los remedios administrativos
antes de la incoacion de dicha
solicitud.

“Si bien es verdad que
en el parrafo de la solicitud
se alega que el solici­tante “has no speedy, plain ano
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the illegal act and
neglect of duty on the part of the respondent except by a writ of
mandamus”, no es menos
verdad que en nin­guna parte de dicha solicitud se ha alegado que el solicitante ha agotado los remedios administrativos
antes de incoar la presen­te
solicitud.  No puede decirse, pugs, que el solicitante ‘has no
speedy, plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law against the
illegal act and neglect of duty on the part of the respondent except by a writ
of mandamus’ “.

We wish to state, however, that the procedure pro­vided for in
Section 1 of Republic Act 557 is not fol­lowed any more, because Republic Act
557 has been re­pealed by Republic Act 4864 known as the Police Act of 1966,
which was enacted on September 8, 1966. 
The new procedure in the matter of preferring charges against police
officers and the conduct of the investigation of the charges are now provided
in Sections 14 and 15 of said Police Act of 1966,as
follows:

“SEC. 14.  Removal and suspension of members of the
Police Force or Agency.  – Mem­bers
of the local police agency shall not be suspended or removed except upon
written complaint filed under oath with the Board of In­vestigators herein
provided, for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty,
disloyalty to the Government, serious irregularities in the per­formance of
their duties, and violation of law.

“SEC. 15.  Board of Investigators.  – In every local police agency there shall be
a Board of Investigators.  Charges
against any member of the city and/or municipal police agency shall be
investigated by a Board of Investigators of three members, composed of the city
or municipal treasurer as chairman, a representative of the Provincial
Commander, and a councilor, elected by a majority of the city or municipal
council concerned, as mem­bers.

“Copy of the charges shall be furnished the respondent by the
Chairman of the Board of Investigators within five days from the date of filing
of said charges, and the res­pondent shall answer within five days from receipt
thereof.  The Board of Investigators
shall conduct its investigation in public within five days from receipt of
respondent’s answer to the charges or from the expiration of respondent’s
period to answer, whichever is earlier and unless for good cause shown the
investigation shall be finished within thirty days thereafter and the Board
shall submit the records of the investigation, its find­ings and
recommendations to the Police Commis­sion within thirty days after the
termination of the investigation.  The
decision of the Police Commission shall be final from the time of receipt of
the findings of the Board.  Disciplinary
jurisdiction of offenses involving suspension of not more than ten days of
forfeit­ure of not more than fifteen days’ pay is vested in the chief of the
police agency con­cerned whose decision shall be final.”

x        x          x          x

We affirm the decision appealed from, but We
dec­lare that the ruling embodied therein regarding the preferment of charges
against a police officer may now be considered academic because of the repeal
of Re­public Act 557 by Republic Act 4864 known as the Police Act of 1966.  Costs against the
petitioner-appellant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Concepcion, C.J., Dizon,
Makalintal, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando,
Capistrano, Teehankee, and
Barredo, JJ., concur.

Reyes, JBL, J., on official
leave.