G.R. No. L-10989; May 28, 1958
PONCIANO GACHO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., ETC., ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Prior to May 26, 1956, twenty-seven petitioners held permanent positions as detectives in the Police Department of Cebu City, with an annual compensation of P1,440 and were insured under the Government Service Insurance System. Twenty of them were civil service eligibles. In 1953, twenty of these petitioners had been illegally dismissed by the Mayor but were reinstated by final court judgments. For the fiscal year 1954-1955, the Municipal Board of Cebu approved Ordinance No. 188, which included items appropriating funds for thirty-eight patrolmen (transferred from seventy-one detectives) and thirty-three detectives (from seventy-one detectives). The Department of Finance, in a communication dated June 14, 1955, stated no objection to the changes in designation provided no one, especially a civil service eligible, would be prejudiced. As no new budget was enacted for 1955-1956, the appropriation under Ordinance No. 188 was deemed reenacted. On May 12, 1956, respondent City Mayor advised petitioners that their positions as detectives had been abolished by Ordinance No. 188 effective immediately and enclosed their appointments as patrolmen, effective May 16, 1956, but “good until revoked.” Petitioners refused these appointments, believing it was a scheme to effect their removal. The City Auditor and City Treasurer subsequently refused to pay their salaries from May 16, 1956. Petitioners filed an action alleging their dismissal was illegal and violative of constitutional and statutory provisions, executive orders, and circulars.

ISSUE

Whether the abolition of the petitioners’ positions as detectives under Municipal Ordinance No. 188 was valid and done in good faith.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court declared that the positions held by petitioners were not validly abolished by Municipal Ordinance No. 188. The abolition was not made in good faith but was a device to circumvent the laws protecting civil service eligibles from removal without cause. The Court found that the ordinance did not truly abolish the positions but merely changed the titles, as the duties of detectives and patrolmen were substantially different, and the police department actually needed more detectives, not patrolmen. The Court noted that the Acting Chief of Police had indicated a need for more secret servicemen, not patrolmen. Furthermore, after the appointments, some of those appointed as patrolmen were reassigned to the secret service division. The Court held that the abolition was for personal or political reasons, not for the demands of public service. Therefore, petitioners were entitled to reinstatement to their positions as detectives with back salaries from May 16, 1956. Costs were awarded against respondent City Mayor.