G.R. No. L-7925 October 31, 1955
ROSENDO MENESES and MARIANO C. LITAO, petitioners-appellees, vs. ARSENIO H. LACSON, as Mayor of the City of Manila, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioners Rosendo Meneses and Mariano C. Litao were a detective lieutenant and a detective sergeant, respectively, in the Manila Police Department. On July 18, 1952, respondent Mayor Arsenio H. Lacson issued a communication summarily dismissing them and seven other officers from the service, effective upon notification, pursuant to Executive Order No. 264 issued by President Manuel L. Quezon. They were notified on July 19, 1952. The petitioners were never formally charged, notified in writing, investigated, or given a chance to defend themselves for any misconduct, incompetency, dishonesty, or other grounds for disciplinary punishment prior to their dismissal. Their service records and last appointments indicated permanent status. The respondent Mayor testified that he dismissed Meneses for gambling beyond his means and Litao for selling an officially assigned jeep (leading to a malversation charge filed after dismissal) and for alleged extortions based on verbal reports, which were hard to prove due to witness reluctance. The petitioners filed an action for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking reinstatement and payment of salaries. The lower court granted the petition, ordering their reinstatement with back salaries but denying damages.

ISSUE

The main issues, as framed by the respondent-appellant, were: (1) Whether the position of detective is primarily confidential under Executive Order No. 264 and Section 671(j) of the Revised Administrative Code; (2) Whether Republic Act No. 557 impliedly repealed Executive Order No. 264; (3) Whether the appointment of appellee Litao was governed by Commonwealth Act No. 698 ; and (4) Whether the appellees, as non-civil service eligibles, are covered by Republic Act No. 557 .

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, ordering the reinstatement of the petitioners. The Court held that the issues raised were identical to those already decided in Oscar Olegario vs. Arsenio H. Lacson (G.R. No. L-7926). Following the doctrine established in Mission vs. Del Rosario, the Court ruled that Executive Order No. 264, insofar as it conflicted with Republic Act No. 557 , had been repealed by the latter. Republic Act No. 557 governs the removal of members of the police force, including detectives or secret service agents, and they may only be removed as provided in that Act. The lack of civil service eligibility did not render the petitioners’ appointments temporary, as they were appointed under the exceptional provisions of Executive Order No. 264 (which excepted such positions from civil service requirements) and Commonwealth Act No. 698 , which were in force before Republic Act No. 557 was enacted. Their appointments were permanent in character. Therefore, their summary dismissal was invalid. The Court noted the respondent Mayor’s good faith, having acted on an opinion from the Commissioner of Civil Service, but emphasized that the judicial decisions prevail. The reinstatement does not preclude appropriate administrative action against the petitioners, provided due process requirements are complied with.