G.R. No. L-17448; August 31, 1962
VICENTE DICHOSO, petitioner-appellant, vs. LEANDRO VALDEPEÑAS, MAYOR APOLONIO P. REYES, and VICENTE TAMAYAO, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner Vicente Dichoso, a civil service eligible, was appointed as Chief of Police of Tuguegarao, Cagayan, effective January 16, 1959. On October 28, 1959, then Mayor Natividad extended to him a promotional appointment to the same permanent position, effective July 1, 1959, with a salary increase. This appointment was duly attested by the Provincial Treasurer as deputy of the Commissioner of Civil Service, pursuant to Section 20 of Republic Act No. 2260 . On January 10, 1960, respondent Leandro Valdepeñas, allegedly appointed by the new Mayor Apolonio P. Reyes, usurped and assumed the functions of Chief of Police, ousting Dichoso. Valdepeñas later resigned, and Mayor Reyes then appointed respondent Vicente Tamayao to the position. The municipal council refused to approve these subsequent appointments. Dichoso filed a petition for quo warranto with mandatory injunction and damages, asserting his lawful right to the position and challenging the validity of the appointments made by Mayor Reyes.
Respondents, in their answer, contended that Dichoso’s appointment was merely temporary and terminated on December 31, 1959, as indicated in the Civil Service Commissioner’s attestation. They argued that Mayor Reyes had the discretion to appoint individuals of his confidence, that Dichoso was unfit due to prior convictions and alleged mental illness, and that both Valdepeñas and Tamayao possessed the requisite qualifications. The Court of First Instance dismissed Dichoso’s petition, upholding the legality of the appointments made by Mayor Reyes and declaring that Dichoso was merely returned to his former position as patrolman, not unlawfully removed.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether petitioner Vicente Dichoso was lawfully removed from his position as Chief of Police and whether the subsequent appointments of respondents Valdepeñas and Tamayao by Mayor Reyes are valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the nature of Dichoso’s appointment and the statutory protections governing the removal of municipal police officers. Dichoso’s promotional appointment of October 28, 1959, was attested by the Provincial Treasurer, making it effective immediately under Section 20 of Republic Act No. 2260 . It was subject to review by the Commissioner of Civil Service, but not having been revised or corrected within the statutory 180-day period, it became permanent. Consequently, Dichoso acquired a permanent appointment, subject only to a six-month probationary period under Section 24(b) of the same Act, which he had completed.
As a permanently appointed member of the municipal police, Dichoso’s removal was governed by Section 1 of Republic Act No. 1551 , which mandates that removal can only be for specific causes such as misconduct, incompetency, or dishonesty, following an investigation and with the approval of the municipal council. Mayor Reyes’s act of “returning” Dichoso to patrolman and appointing others constituted a removal without cause and without the required council approval, rendering it illegal. The Mayor’s discretion in appointment does not extend to arbitrarily removing a permanent appointee protected by statute. Therefore, Dichoso’s ouster was unjustified, and the appointments of Valdepeñas and Tamayao, made in violation of the law, were invalid. The Court ordered Dichoso’s immediate reinstatement with back salaries and awarded attorney’s fees.