G.R. No. L-34532 December 19, 1980
Pasay Law and Conscience Union, Inc., and Rolando C. Siquijor, as Chief of Police of Pasay City, petitioners, vs. Pablo Cuneta, as Mayor of Pasay City and Carlos T. Galvez, as Officer-in-Charge and/or Assistant to the Mayor, Pasay City Police Department, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Rolando C. Siquijor was duly appointed and confirmed as Chief of Police of Pasay City in September 1971. Upon assuming office in January 1972, newly elected respondent Mayor Pablo Cuneta issued a series of memorandum orders. Memorandum Order No. 1 assigned Siquijor to the mayor’s office as a consultant on police matters. Concurrently, Memorandum Orders Nos. 4, 5, and 6 designated respondent Carlos T. Galvez as officer-in-charge of the police department, directing all personnel to report to him. Following Siquijor’s protest, the Mayor issued Memorandum Order No. 10, which ostensibly revoked the prior orders but effectively maintained Galvez as the mayor’s assistant to “take charge” of all police matters to render the mayor’s control “more effective.”
The petitioners filed a prohibition case with a plea for a preliminary injunction, arguing that these orders constituted an illegal removal of Siquijor from his position without cause and due process. This Court granted a preliminary injunction on January 13, 1972, enjoining the enforcement of Memorandum Orders Nos. 1 and 10. Despite this injunction, respondent Mayor subsequently issued further orders and took actions that continued to bypass and undermine petitioner Siquijor’s authority, including attempting to eject him from his office and later appointing Galvez as Chief of Police.

ISSUE

Whether the acts of respondent Mayor, through the issuance of the memorandum orders and subsequent actions, constituted a constructive removal of petitioner Siquijor from his position as Chief of Police, and whether the Mayor defied the Court’s preliminary injunction.

RULING

The petition for prohibition is dismissed. The Court found that the core legal issue—the validity of Siquijor’s removal—had been rendered moot. The factual record showed that Siquijor’s promotional appointment was temporary in nature, contingent upon the outcome of an appropriate civil service examination. Consequently, the incoming Mayor possessed the authority to replace him, as a temporary appointee holds no fixed term and serves at the pleasure of the appointing authority. The memorandum orders, while stripping Siquijor of his duties, did not formally terminate him; thus, they did not constitute an illegal removal requiring a formal administrative charge. The legal logic rests on the distinction between removal from office and mere reassignment or relief of duties, with the latter being within the mayor’s supervisory powers if no fixed term exists.
However, the Court held respondent Mayor Pablo Cuneta in contempt. The legal reasoning is that while the main petition was dismissible, the Mayor’s conduct after the issuance of the preliminary injunction on January 13, 1972, demonstrated a “pattern of subtle defiance.” His subsequent orders and actions, including the attempted ejection of Siquijor and the appointment of a replacement, were schemes to circumvent the Court’s lawful order. Contempt power exists to uphold judicial authority and prevent its orders from being rendered ineffectual. The Mayor’s actions, though not a direct violation, bordered on schemes to undermine the injunction’s effect. Therefore, he was fined P1,000.00 as punishment for contempt of court, with a warning against future defiance.