VOL.

1, FEBRUARY 28, 1961 663

Cuneta vs. Court of Appeals

No. L-13264. February 28, 1961.

PABLO CUNETA, ETC., ET AL., petitioners, vs. THE

HON.

664

664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cuneta vs. Court of Appeals

COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., respondents,

Public officers; Civil Service; Administrative law; Charter of

Pasay City; Detectives; Republic Act No. 557; Illegal abolition of
positions.—Detectives, who were part of the regular police force of
Pasay City, belong to the unclassified class of the civil service.
Under the Charter of Pasay City, they can only be removed in
accordance with the Civil Service Law, The elimination of their
positions, by means of reorganization, constitutes a removal in
disregard of the safeguard prescribed by law for they were
separated without any formal charge having been filed against
them.

Same; Municipal corporations; Executive Order No. 175,

series of 1938; Presidential approval for municipal reorganization
plan.—The reorganization plan adopted by the mayor of Pasay
City in line with the authority given to him to reorganize the city
government by the municipal board, had no valid effect because it
was never submitted to the President for approval as required by
Executive Order No. 175, series of 1938. That def ieciency was not
remedied by the f act that the budget corresponding to the said
plan was approved by the office of the President since such
approval is not equivalent to the express Presidential sanction
required for the overall reorganization plan.
 Same.—A public office should not be deemed abolished by
mere implication.

PETITION for review by certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the' opinion of the Court.

Francisco G. H. Salva (City Attorney of Pasay City)
for petitioners.
Isagani Manuel for respondents.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:

On February 1, 1956, the Municipal Board of Pasay City

approved Resolution No. 36 empowering the city mayor to
reorganize the various departments and offices of the city
government to accomplish efficiency and economy, and to
promote, transfer, demote or lay off, as a consequence
thereof, city officials and employees, pursuant to existing
civil service law and regulations. To implement said
resolution the city mayor prepared what is now known as
Re-organization Plan No. 5 for the police department,
which was subsequently submitted to and approved by the
municipal board on March, 22 of the same year. This
reorgan-
665

VOL. 1, FEBRUARY 28, 1961 665

Cuneta vs. Court of Appeals

ization plan reduced from 92 to 12 the number of detectives

in the aforesaid department.
Upon approval by the municipal board of said
reorganization plan, the city mayor, under date of March
25, 1956, sent a communication to the chief of police
directing the latter to screen the list of detectives and
select the 12 who should be reappointed and retained in the
service. Accordingly, the selection was made and the
recommendation submitted.
Appellees herein were among those not recommended
for reappointment. They were notified of their separation f
rom the service effective as of the close of office hours of
April 25, 1956, without prejudice to their reappointment
should appropriate funds be available. The city treasurer
and city auditor, upon being furnished with copies of the
notice served upon appellees, refused to pay and pass in
audit their salaries after April 25, 1956.
 On June 6, 1956, appellees filed before the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Pasay Branch, a mandamus proceed-ing
to command the respondent city mayor to reinstate them to
their former rank and positions; to command the city
mayor, city treasurer and city auditor to pay them their
salaries accruing from the time they were illegally removed
from their office until they are actually reinstated in the
service, and to declare their removal f rom their rank and
positions as illegal.
After trial the lower court found appellees' separation
from the service illegal and rendered judgment against
appellants. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the
judgment was affirmed. Appellants come before this Court
assigning as errors the findings and conclusions of the
Court of Appeals.
The issues raised by appellants in their assignments of
errors may be boiled down as follows: that their original
petition does not state a cause of action; that it does not
dispute the validity of Resolution No. 36 which authorizes
the reorganization of the various departments and offices of
the government of Pasay City; that Reorganization Plan
No. 5 approved by the municipal board of said city to
implement said resolution is valid; that appellees had been
legally separated because their positions had been

666

666 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cuneta vs. Court of Appeals

properly eliminated either in said plan or in the budget

submitted in connection therewith.
There is no merit in this appeal. We find that, under the
law and precedents on the matter, appellees were
improperly eliminated, and, hence, are entitled to
reinstatement.
It should be noted that appellees at the time of their
removal were holding the positions of detectives who
performed the duties of peace officers and such other duties
as may be assigned to them by the chief of police, or as may
be prescribed by law or ordinance. As part of the regular
police force, they belonged to the unclassified class of the
civil service, and in view of the nature of their office, their
removal can only be accomplished in accordance with law,
particularly paragraph 2, section 20, article IV, Republic
Act No. 183, which provides:
"All other officers and employees of the city whose appointment is
not otherwise provided for by law shall be appointed by the Mayor
upon the recommendation of the corresponding city department
head in accordance with the Civil Service Law, and they shall be
suspended or removed in accordance with said law."

Our Constitution also protects their tenure of office when it

postulates that "No officer or employee in the Civil Service
shall be removed or suspended except for cause as provided
by law" (Section 4, Article XII). And the mode and manner
by which they may be suspended or removed from office are
also prescribed in the law, particularly section 1, Republic
Act No. 557, which in part provides:

"SECTION 1. 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. x x x"

Since appellees were removed from office in disregard

667

VOL. 1, FEBRUARY 28, 1961 667

Cuneta vs. Court of Appeals

of the saf eguard prescribed by law for they were separated

without any formal charge having been filed against them
and, if any, without having been given an opportunity to
defend themselves, it is clear that their petition sets forth a
good cause of action.
It is true that the positions which appellees were
holding were eliminated from the reorganization plan
adopted by the city mayor in line with the authority given
him to reorganize the government by the municipal board,
but said plan has no valid effect because it was never
submitted to the President for approval 1 as required by
Executive Order No. 175, series of 1938. Nor can this void
be obviated by the fact that the budget corresponding to
said plan was approved by the office of the President since
such approval cannot imply an express presidential
sanction of the overall reorganization plan. We concur in
the following comment of the Court of Appeals:

"We find no merit in this contention. A public office should not be

deemed abolished by mere implication. In other words, by the
mere approval by the office of the President of the budget of
Pasay City, which was approved by the Municipal Board on June
25, 1956, it should not be assumed that the President had also
given his express approval to the Reorganization Plan No. 5 which
does not appear to have ever been submitted for his
consideration."

WHEREFORE, we affirm the decision appealed from,

without pronouncement as to costs.

Bengzon, Actg. C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes,

and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Concepcion, J., took no part.

Decision affirmed.

Notes.—An employee in the unclassified service is

entitled to the protection of the Civil Service Law (Arcel vs.
Osmeña, L-19456, Feb. 27, 1981, ante).
The case of Cuneta vs. Court of Appeals, supra, involves
the abolition of the positions of detectives. It was held

_______________

1 "No position in any city or municipal police force or in the provincial

guards should be abolished nor may the salary corresponding thereto
reduced without the approval of the President of the Philippines."

668

668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cuneta vs. Court of Appeals

that the Pasay City detectives, being part of the regular

police force, "belonged to the unclassified class of the civil
service". It should be noted that in Subido vs. Sarmiento,
L-14981, May 23, 1960, it was held that Manila detectives
"are not embraced in the unclassified service" and that, as
"members of the police force", they "are in the classified
service" and, therefore, "may no longer be removed except
for cause in and in the manner prescribed in Republic Act
No. 557".
 As to the abolition in bad f aith of the positions of
employees in the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative
Financing Administration (ACCFA), see Cariño vs.
Agricultural Credit and Cooperative Financing
Administration, L-19808, Sept. 22,1966,18 Supreme Court
Reports Annotated 183.
As to illegal abolition of positions of market sweepers in
the budget of the City of Iloilo, see Guillergan vs. Ganzon,
L-20818, May 18, 1966, 17 Supreme Court Reports
Annotated 257.
Abolition in bad faith of the positions of special counsel
in the office of the Provincial Fiscal of Pangasinan was
considered illegal in Ocampo vs. Duque, L-23812, April 30,
1966, 16 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 962.
As to abolition in good faith of a clerical position in the
municipal treasurer's office, see Maza vs. Ochave, L22336,
May 23, 1967, 20 Supreme Reports Annotated 142.
Abolition of a clerical position in the mayor's office for
reasons of economy is valid (Arao vs. Luspo, L-23982. July
21, 1967, 20 Supreme Court Reports Annotated 722).
Illegal abolition of positions, which is tantamount to
removal in violation of the Civil Service Law is illustrated
in Briones vs. Osmeña, 55 O. G. 1920; Abanilla vs. Ticao. L-
22271, July 26, 1966, 17 Supreme Court Reports Annotated
652; Gacho vs. Osmeña, 55 O.G. 10079; Mangubat vs.
Osmeña, L-12837, April 30, 1959; Gonzales vs. Osmeña, L-
15901, Dec. 30, 1961; Urgelio vs. Osmeña, L-14908, Oct. 31,
1963.
In Llanto vs. Dimaporo, L-21905, March 31, 1966, 16
Supreme Court Reports Annotated 599, it was held that,
under the Local Autonomy Act (Rep. Act 2264), the
approval of the Secretary of Finance is not required f or the
abolition of positions in the provincial, city or municipal
govern-
669

VOL. 1, FEBRUARY 28, 1961 669

Collector of Internal Revenue vs. University of the Visayas

ments,
As to abolitions of positions of Judges-at-Large and
Cadastral Judges, see Ocampo vs. Secretary of Justice, 51
O. G. 147.
 ———————

© Copyright 2023 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.