G.R. No. L-31641 October 23, 1981
MAYOR EULOGIO E. BORRES, petitioner, vs. HON. MATEO CANONOY, Presiding Judge, Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch III, and SILVERIO PARAGES, respondents.

FACTS

In 1968, petitioner Eulogio Borres, as Acting Mayor of Cebu City, issued a memorandum ordering the detail of private respondent Silverio Parages, a permanent detective in the Cebu Police Department, to the Mayor’s office. This order was based on verbal complaints about Parages molesting Chinese businessmen and unsatisfactory performance. Parages refused to comply, deeming the detail order illegal, and continued reporting to his original unit. Consequently, Mayor Borres charged Parages with insubordination and neglect of duty before the Police Commission and ordered his suspension.
Parages filed a petition for prohibition and injunction in the Court of First Instance, later amended to challenge his suspension. The trial court declared the detail order illegal and null for violating Section 90 of the Revised Charter of Cebu and the constitutional protection of security of tenure. It consequently held the suspension order illegal, ordering Parages’s reinstatement with back salaries. The court denied the Mayor’s motion for reconsideration and granted execution of the judgment pending appeal.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether the Mayor had the legal authority to order the detail of a permanent police detective and to subsequently suspend him for refusal to obey that order.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision, upholding the legality of both the detail and suspension orders. The Court’s legal logic centered on statutory interpretation and administrative law principles. It examined the Revised Charter of Cebu, specifically Sections 19, 20(e), and 32, which collectively grant the Mayor direct supervision and control over the Police Department and the power to transfer employees in the interest of the service. The Court found that the Mayor’s power of control inherently includes the authority to detail personnel within the department as a necessary incident of administrative efficiency.
The Court distinguished a “detail” from a “transfer,” noting a detail is a temporary movement that does not constitute removal or disciplinary action. It rejected the application of Civil Service Commission memoranda requiring prior approval for certain assignments, ruling that such general administrative issuances cannot override the specific grant of power to the Mayor under the city charter. The detail was deemed a valid exercise of the Mayor’s supervisory prerogative to investigate the complaints against Parages. Furthermore, the Court held that Parages’s outright refusal to obey a presumptively regular order constituted grave misconduct or insubordination, providing valid grounds for his preventive suspension under the Police Act. The suspension was a consequence of his defiance, not the detail itself. Therefore, both orders were declared legal and effective.