G.R. No. L-14981; May 23, 1960
Abelardo Subido, petitioner-appellant, vs. Marcelino Sarmiento, Antonio Paralejas, Arsenio H. Lacson, and Telesforo Tenorio, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Abelardo Subido, a citizen and taxpayer, filed a petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction in the Court of First Instance of Manila against the respondents: Marcelino Sarmiento (City Treasurer), Antonio Paralejas (Commanding Officer, Precinct 5, Manila Police Department), Arsenio H. Lacson (City Mayor), and Telesforo Tenorio (Chief of Police). The petition sought to declare illegal the assignment of respondent Antonio Paralejas, a Detective Captain, to the position of Precinct Commander, alleging that the detective position belonged to the unclassified civil service, while the precinct commander position was classified. Subido argued this assignment violated Section 685 of the Revised Administrative Code, which prohibits persons in the unclassified service from being employed in the classified service. The petition also sought to suspend payment of Paralejas’s salary, order his return to the Detective Bureau, and compel Mayor Lacson and Chief Tenorio to refund the salaries paid to Paralejas during his alleged illegal assignment. The respondents contested the petition, asserting that Paralejas possessed civil service eligibilities, that the applicable laws were Sections 34 and 37 of the Revised Charter of Manila, and that Subido, as a mere taxpayer with a pending retirement gratuity claim, was not the real party in interest. The case was decided on a stipulation of facts, and the lower court dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The sole issue is whether the assignment of Detective Antonio Paralejas to the position of Precinct Commander of the Manila Police Department is legal.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, ruling that the assignment was legal and that the petitioner lacked standing to sue.
1. On the Legality of the Assignment: The Court held that detectives in the Manila Police Department are not part of the unclassified service. Appellant’s reliance on Section 671(j) of the Revised Administrative Code, which lists “secret agents” in the unclassified service, was misplaced. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the term “secret agents” in that provision refers to provincial confidential agents and does not include city detectives. Furthermore, the Court noted that prior to its amendment by Commonwealth Act No. 177, the same section explicitly listed both “detectives” and “secret agents” separately. The amendment removed “detectives” from the enumeration, thereby removing them from the unclassified service. Consequently, pursuant to Section 670 of the Revised Administrative Code, detectives fall under the classified service. The Court also cited Section 37 of the Revised Charter of Manila, which designates members of the city detective force as “peace officers,” and referenced prior jurisprudence recognizing detectives as members of the police force within the classified service. Since Paralejas was a civil service eligible appointed to a classified position, his assignment was lawful.
2. On the Petitioner’s Standing (Real Party in Interest): The Court ruled that petitioner Abelardo Subido, suing as a citizen and taxpayer, was not the real party in interest and therefore had no legal standing to institute the mandamus proceedings. To be a real party in interest, one must demonstrate a direct benefit or injury from the judgment. Subido did not claim any right to the position occupied by Paralejas. His allegation of a delayed retirement gratuity payment was not shown to be caused by Paralejas’s appointment or salary. The Court found no showing that the payment of Paralejas’s salary created an additional or unreasonable burden on the city’s taxpayers. Citing various authorities, the Court held that a taxpayer cannot maintain a suit to challenge an official act without showing a direct injury distinct from that of the general public. Since Subido failed to demonstrate such particularized injury, he could not prosecute the action.
The appealed judgment was affirmed, with costs against the petitioner-appellant.