FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, ET AL., PETITIONERS AND APPELLEES, VS. MARTIN N. FRANCISCO, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. MARTIN N. FRANCISCO, RESPONDENT AND APPELLANT.

On June 11, 1955 appellees commenced this action for Mandamus in the
Court of First Instance of Cebu against Martin N. Francisco and
Alejandro Jumao-as, in their capacity as then municipal mayor and
municipal treasurer, respectively, of Cordova, Cebu, to compel them to
reinstate them as patrolman of Cordova and to pay them their respective
salaries corresponding to the period from February 22, 1955 until the
date of their reinstatement, together with moral damages and attorney’s
fees.

From the decision of the lower court ordering
appellants to reinstate appellees to their former positions but without
right to collect accumulated salaries, reserving them, however, the
right to file the necessary action to recover said salaries as damages
from appellants, the latter appealed However, appellant Jumao-as
withdrew his appeal on August 21, 1957.

It appears that for
some time prior to February 22, 1952 appellees—civil service
eligibles—were members of the municipal police force of Cordova, Cebu.
On that date they were dismissed after an investigation allegedly
conducted by the municipal council upon complaint of appellant
Francisco charging them with electioneering and threats.

Appellees claim that they had never been served with copies of the
charges, but admit that they received notice that they were going to be
investigated on February 19, 1952, in the municipal building of
Cordova. Pursuant to said notice, they and their attorney, Mr. Nestor
Legaspi, appeared before the municipal council to contest—as the lower
court found—the jurisdiction of the committee appointed by the
municipal council to investigate them, on the ground that said
committee had not been constituted in accordance with the provisions of
Republic Act No. 557, and that no formal charges had been filed against
them by appellant Francisco, in his capacity as municipal mayor. The
committee, however, overruled their objection, and as said committee
was bent on going ahead with the investigation, appellees and their
attorney left the premises. As a result of the proceedings thereafter
had, appellees were found guilty of the charges and were ordered
removed from office, notice of which decision was received by them on
February 22, 1952.

The preponderance of the evidence
sufficiently shows that, immediately after receiving notice of the
decision, appellees delivered to the chief of police a notice appealing
from the decision to the Commissioner of Civil Service. It appears,
however, that the record of the administrative case was not elevated to
the Commissioner of Civil Service, and when, under date of February 7,
1954, appellees sent a letter to the then President of the Philippines
making inquiries regarding their appeal, they were subsequently
informed that the records of the Office of the Commissioner failed to
show that the appeal had been duly transmitted to it, and that, as a
consequence, said office considered the decision rendered against
appellees as having become final. Upon this matter the lower court made
the following findings:

“A perusal of
Exhibit 5 (proceedings in alleged administrative case involving
plaintiffs’ separation) reveals that Mayor Francisco who was the
prosecutor, was acting as if he were the prosecutor and sole
investigator at the same time—and judge, subsequently. As a result of
the one sided investigation, an order for the removal of the plaintiffs
was issued, copy of which was received by plaintiffs on February 22,
1952 (Exhibit 1). Immediately, plaintiffs filed an appeal therefrom
coursing same to the Honorable Commissioner of Civil Service, copy of
which and all other pertinent papers were received and receipted for by
the then Chief of Police of Cordova, who was sheriff ex-oficio. For
unknown reason, defendant municipal mayor must have pigeonholed this
appeal, for nothing has been heard of it ever since (note Exhibit A 1,
letter dated February 7, 1954, coursed by plaintiffs to His Excellency,
the President of the Philippines, and its enclosures, Exhibits B and C).

“As
of January 5, 1953, a letter (Exhibit E) was received by Francisco
Sanchez, one of the plaintiffs, from Manila advising plaintiffs that
the records in the office of the Commissioner of Civil Service did not
show that the appeal papers (which the ex-oficio sheriff and Chief of
Police of Cordova had acknowledged receipt of copy thereof) had been
received there so much so that the decision of the municipal council of
Cordova dismissing plaintiffs became final under the provisions of
Section 2, Republic Act No. 557. It is thus clear that if no appeal
with its pertinent papers had been forwarded to the Commissioner of
Civil Service, the defendant Mayor or the “committee” must have
pigeonholed it as the presumption is inevitable that the chief of
police must have complied with his duties and thus submitted the same.
Defendants’ assertion, therefore, that plaintiffs did not appeal from
the decision of the municipal council is untenable. If no such appeal
had been received by the Commissioner of Civil Service, the fault was
entirely that of defendants and plaintiffs could not be blamed for
their acts.

“For all legal practical purposes, therefore,
plaintiffs should be, as they are hereby considered as having appealed
from the decision of the municipal council and thus are presumed to
have exhausted all administrative remedies open to them.”

A perusal of the record discloses nothing sufficient to overcome the
finding of the lower court to the effect that, in due time, appellees
had taken an appeal from the decision of the municipal council of
Cordova dismissing them from the service, but that appellant Francisco,
in his capacity as municipal mayor at the time, “pigeonholed this
appeal”, thus preventing, thus far, the Office of the Commissioner of
Civil Service from taking cognizance thereof. It being obvious,
therefore, that the administrative investigation against appellees has
not been finally disposed of, the proper remedy is not what they pray
for in their complaint but to prosecute their appeal.

In
view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is modified in the
sense that appellants and/or their successors in office are hereby
ordered to transmit, within ten days from the finality of this
decision, the record of the administrative investigation conducted by
the municipal council of Cordova, through its investigating committee
to the Commissioner of Civil Service, for the proper disposition of the
appeal interposed by appellees against the decision dismissing them
from the service.

Modified as above indicated, the appealed decision is affirmed in all other respects. With costs.

Bengzon, Acting C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.