G.R. No. L-22062 March 29, 1968
GREGORIO Y. ROMERO, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE HONORABLE MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF BOLJOON, CEBU, ELIAS GOMERA, ET AL., respondent-appellants.

FACTS

Gregorio Y. Romero, a civil service eligible, was appointed Chief of Police of Boljoon, Cebu, on January 23, 1954. On August 16, 1962, he was preventively suspended by the Municipal Mayor following the filing of Administrative Case No. 2 against him for serious irregularities. After several postponements at Romero’s instance, the Municipal Council approved Resolution No. 66 on November 16, 1962, finding him guilty and dismissing him effective August 16, 1962. Romero appealed this decision to the Commissioner of Civil Service. On December 14, 1962, Romero, through counsel, requested reinstatement, invoking Section 3 of Republic Act No. 557 which limits preventive suspension to sixty days. The Mayor denied the request on December 18, 1962. Meanwhile, two other administrative cases were filed against Romero: Administrative Case No. 3 (filed August 23, 1962, for willful neglect to pay a debt) and Administrative Case No. 4 (filed October 16, 1962, for gross misconduct and dishonesty). The Municipal Council dismissed him in Administrative Case No. 3 via Resolution No. 75 on December 17, 1962, and indefinitely postponed Administrative Case No. 4 pending the final determination of Administrative Case No. 2. On January 26, 1963, Romero filed a petition for mandamus, certiorari, and prohibition with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking reinstatement, annulment of Resolution No. 75, prohibition against proceeding with Administrative Case No. 4, and recovery of salaries and damages. The lower court granted the writ of mandamus for reinstatement pending appeal, declared Resolution No. 75 null and void, and dismissed the petition for prohibition regarding Administrative Case No. 4, directing the respondents to either dismiss it or proceed accordingly. The respondents appealed.

ISSUE

Whether or not appellee Gregorio Y. Romero is entitled to reinstatement pending the final determination of his appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Service in Administrative Case No. 2.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court insofar as it directed the reinstatement of Romero pending appeal. The Court held that the applicable law is Section 3 of Republic Act No. 557 , a special law governing provincial guards and municipal police, and not the general provisions of Section 35 of Republic Act No. 2260 (Civil Service Act of 1959). Under Republic Act No. 557 , a suspended policeman is entitled to reinstatement only if the administrative case is not finally decided within sixty days from his preventive suspension. However, this reinstatement cannot be demanded if the delay in the disposition of the case is due to the respondent’s own fault or petition, such as when the respondent appeals the decision to the Commissioner of Civil Service. Since Romero’s appeal to the Commissioner of Civil Service was the cause of the delay in the final disposition of Administrative Case No. 2, he was not entitled to reinstatement pending that appeal. The Court cited precedents in Alacar vs. City Mayor and Kordovez vs. Carmona, which established that an appeal taken by the suspended officer excuses any delay and bars the right to reinstatement under the sixty-day rule.