EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-22355. September 30, 1969.]
ANTOLIN GALENO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REINERIO TICAO in his capacity as Mayor of the City of Iloilo, Respondent-Appellee.
German M. Lopez for Petitioner-Appellant.
Acting City Fiscal Alfredo R. Illenberger and Special Counsel Raymundo Magat for Respondent-Appellee.
SYLLABUS
1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; REPUBLIC ACT 557; COMPLAINT AGAINST CITY POLICE OFFICER; FILING THEREOF BY ANY PERSON OR ENTITY; NOT MANDATORY FOR CITY MAYOR TO CHARGE POLICE OFFICER WITH CITY COUNCIL. — Under Section I of Republic Act 557, upon the mere filing by any person or entity with the city mayor of a complaint against a city police officer, it is not mandatory for the city mayor to prefer charges against the police officer with the city council.
2. ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE; SECTION 1 OF REPUBLIC ACT 557 REPEALED BY REP. ACT 4864, POLICE ACT OF 1966. — The procedure provided for in Section 1 of Republic Act 557 is not followed any more, because Republic Act 557 has been repealed by Republic Act 4864 known as the Police Act of 1966, which was enacted on September 8, 1966. The new procedure in the matter of preferring charges against police officers and the conduct of investigation of the charges are now provided in Sections 14 and 15 of said Police Act of 1966.
3. ID.; ID.; RULING OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE REGARDING PREFERMENT OF CHARGES AGAINST POLICE OFFICER; ACADEMIC WHEN REPUBLIC ACT 557 WAS REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT 4864. — The ruling embodied in the decision appealed from regarding the preferment of charges against a police officer may now be considered academic because of the repeal of Republic Act 557 by Republic Act 4864 known as the Police Act of 1966.
2. ID.; ID.; PROCEDURE; SECTION 1 OF REPUBLIC ACT 557 REPEALED BY REP. ACT 4864, POLICE ACT OF 1966. — The procedure provided for in Section 1 of Republic Act 557 is not followed any more, because Republic Act 557 has been repealed by Republic Act 4864 known as the Police Act of 1966, which was enacted on September 8, 1966. The new procedure in the matter of preferring charges against police officers and the conduct of investigation of the charges are now provided in Sections 14 and 15 of said Police Act of 1966.
3. ID.; ID.; RULING OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE REGARDING PREFERMENT OF CHARGES AGAINST POLICE OFFICER; ACADEMIC WHEN REPUBLIC ACT 557 WAS REPEALED BY REPUBLIC ACT 4864. — The ruling embodied in the decision appealed from regarding the preferment of charges against a police officer may now be considered academic because of the repeal of Republic Act 557 by Republic Act 4864 known as the Police Act of 1966.
D E C I S I O N
ZALDIVAR, J.:
Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Judge F. Imperial Reyes, presiding, in Civil Case No. 6215, dismissing the petition for mandamus, filed by petitioner-appellant Antolin Galeno against respondent-appellee Mayor Reinerio Ticao of the City of Iloilo, to compel the latter to prefer administrative charges before the City Board against a captain of detectives in the police force of the City.
The facts are undisputed. On October 16, 1962, petitioner Antolin Galeno sent a letter to the City Board of the City of Iloilo, complaining against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde, charging him with grave misconduct as a police officer in connection with an incident between them which occurred in the afternoon of October 8, 1962. The letter was not under oath, nor was it accompanied by any sworn statement. A copy of that letter was furnished respondent City Mayor. The City Board of Iloilo, by resolution, furnished a copy of the letter to respondent City Mayor "requesting appropriate action." On November 1, 1962, respondent City Mayor endorsed the letter to the City of Police of the City of Iloilo, with instructions that Captain Rafael D. Lavente, Chief of the Patrol Division and Legal Officer of the Police Department of the City conduct an investigation on the complaint contained in said letter. After conducting the corresponding investigation, Captain Rafael D. Lavente submitted, through the Chief of Police, to respondent Mayor a report, dated November 6, 1962, recommending dismissal of the complaint.
On November 27, 1962, petitioner wrote an amended letter- complaint, addressed to respondent Mayor, reiterating the same allegations contained in his letter to the City Board of October 16, 1962. This time petitioner’s amended letter was under oath but, like his former letter-complaint, it was not accompanied by any sworn statement. On November 28, 1962 respondent Mayor answered petitioner, attaching therewith a copy of the report submitted by Captain Rafael D. Lavente.
On November 29, 1962, Attorney German Lopez, in behalf of the petitioner, wrote a letter to respondent Mayor questioning the propriety of respondent’s action in endorsing petitioner’s letter- complaint to the Legal Officer of the Iloilo City Police Department for investigation, instead of endorsing same to the City Board; and at the same time complaining that petitioner was not given a chance to be heard by Captain Lavente. Atty. Lopez requested respondent Mayor to prefer administrative charges against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde before the City Board, on the basis of petitioner’s letter-complaint of October 16, 1962 and his sworn amended letter-complaint of November 27, 1962.
The record shows that on October 8, 1962, petitioner Antolin Galeno filed a complaint with the Office of the City Fiscal of Iloilo against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde for threats and slander in connection with the same incident which was the basis of his complaint against the same police officer, as stated in his letter-complaint of October 16, 1962 to the City Board and of his amended letter-complaint of November 27, 1962 addressed to respondent City Mayor. It appears that after due investigation Assistant City Fiscal Vicente P. Gengos dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
On December 10, 1962 respondent Mayor answered the letter of Atty. Lopez of November 29, 1962, stating "that no administrative case against any member of the Iloilo City Police Force can be filed without ascertaining the truth of the complaint, unless said member of the police force had been accused in court of any felony or violation of law." Respondent Mayor further stated, in bolstering his refusal to prefer charges against Detective Captain Verde, that he had been informed that Fiscal Vicente Gengos dismissed the criminal complaint against Captain Emeterio Verde after conducting a preliminary investigation, and added: "Under the present circumstances the undersigned cannot file said administrative case considering that the Office of the Chief of Police of the City of Iloilo had submitted an investigation report recommending dismissal of said charge."cralaw virtua1aw library
In view of the refusal of respondent Mayor to file the administrative charges, petitioner filed, on January 22, 1963, before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition for mandamus, alleging refusal of respondent Mayor to perform a "ministerial duty" to prefer charges with the Municipal Board of Iloilo City against the said Detective Captain Emeterio Verde in spite of the demands made on him by the petitioner, to the damage and prejudice of the latter. The petition prayed that respondent Mayor be ordered to prefer charges with, or endorse the sworn letter-complaint of November 27, 1962 of petitioner to the City Board of Iloilo City for its appropriate action in accordance with law, to pay petitioner the sum of P3,000.00 for moral damages, P500.00 for attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit.
After hearing, the trial court, on November 20, 1963, rendered a decision dismissing the petition. Hence, this appeal.
The question to be resolved in this case is: Under Section 1 of Republic Act 557, upon the mere filing by any person or entity with the city mayor of a complaint against a city police officer, is it the mandatory duty of the city mayor to prefer charges against the police officer with the city council?
We rule that it is not mandatory, and so mandamus will not lie to compel the city mayor to prefer the charges against a police officer with the city council. We fully concur with the view of the learned trial judge when he resolved this question, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"En apoyo de la solicitud, la representación del solicitante sostiene que, después de recibir las dos cartas del solicitante (Exhs. A y C), el recurrido tenia el deber ministerial de formular cargos contra el secreta Emeterio Verde. La del recurrido sostiene lo contrario — que el recurrido tiene discreción de formular cargos o no, dependiendo de si hay pruebas o no para establecer dichos cargos.
"Después de estudiadas las pruebas en autos, el Juzgado encuentra que la pretensión del solicitante es insostenible.
"Antes de la aprobación de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica, el Art. 2272 del Codigo Administrativo Revisado, que habla de la presentación de cargos contra un policia y de la investigación de dichos cargos, dice lo siguiente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
‘Section 2272. Members of the municipal police shall not be removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be discharged except for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Philippine government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties. and violation of law or duty and in such cases charges shall be preferred under oath by the mayor or by any other person and investigated by the municipal council or a committee of three councilors, designated for said purpose by a majority of the council, in public hearing and the accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense.’ (Italics ours)
"El Art. 1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica, que ahora habla de la presentación de cargos contra un policia y de su investigación, reza como sigue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
‘Members of the provincial guards, city police and municipal police shall not be removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be discharged, except for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Philippine government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and violation of law or duty, and in such cases charges shall be preferred by the provincial governor in matters against any member of the provincial guards, the city mayor in cases against a member of the city police, and the municipal mayor in cases involving a member of the municipal police, and investigated by the provincial board, the city or municipal council, as the case may be, in public hearing, and the accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense.’ (Italics ours)
"Mientras seg
The facts are undisputed. On October 16, 1962, petitioner Antolin Galeno sent a letter to the City Board of the City of Iloilo, complaining against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde, charging him with grave misconduct as a police officer in connection with an incident between them which occurred in the afternoon of October 8, 1962. The letter was not under oath, nor was it accompanied by any sworn statement. A copy of that letter was furnished respondent City Mayor. The City Board of Iloilo, by resolution, furnished a copy of the letter to respondent City Mayor "requesting appropriate action." On November 1, 1962, respondent City Mayor endorsed the letter to the City of Police of the City of Iloilo, with instructions that Captain Rafael D. Lavente, Chief of the Patrol Division and Legal Officer of the Police Department of the City conduct an investigation on the complaint contained in said letter. After conducting the corresponding investigation, Captain Rafael D. Lavente submitted, through the Chief of Police, to respondent Mayor a report, dated November 6, 1962, recommending dismissal of the complaint.
On November 27, 1962, petitioner wrote an amended letter- complaint, addressed to respondent Mayor, reiterating the same allegations contained in his letter to the City Board of October 16, 1962. This time petitioner’s amended letter was under oath but, like his former letter-complaint, it was not accompanied by any sworn statement. On November 28, 1962 respondent Mayor answered petitioner, attaching therewith a copy of the report submitted by Captain Rafael D. Lavente.
On November 29, 1962, Attorney German Lopez, in behalf of the petitioner, wrote a letter to respondent Mayor questioning the propriety of respondent’s action in endorsing petitioner’s letter- complaint to the Legal Officer of the Iloilo City Police Department for investigation, instead of endorsing same to the City Board; and at the same time complaining that petitioner was not given a chance to be heard by Captain Lavente. Atty. Lopez requested respondent Mayor to prefer administrative charges against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde before the City Board, on the basis of petitioner’s letter-complaint of October 16, 1962 and his sworn amended letter-complaint of November 27, 1962.
The record shows that on October 8, 1962, petitioner Antolin Galeno filed a complaint with the Office of the City Fiscal of Iloilo against Detective Captain Emeterio Verde for threats and slander in connection with the same incident which was the basis of his complaint against the same police officer, as stated in his letter-complaint of October 16, 1962 to the City Board and of his amended letter-complaint of November 27, 1962 addressed to respondent City Mayor. It appears that after due investigation Assistant City Fiscal Vicente P. Gengos dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
On December 10, 1962 respondent Mayor answered the letter of Atty. Lopez of November 29, 1962, stating "that no administrative case against any member of the Iloilo City Police Force can be filed without ascertaining the truth of the complaint, unless said member of the police force had been accused in court of any felony or violation of law." Respondent Mayor further stated, in bolstering his refusal to prefer charges against Detective Captain Verde, that he had been informed that Fiscal Vicente Gengos dismissed the criminal complaint against Captain Emeterio Verde after conducting a preliminary investigation, and added: "Under the present circumstances the undersigned cannot file said administrative case considering that the Office of the Chief of Police of the City of Iloilo had submitted an investigation report recommending dismissal of said charge."cralaw virtua1aw library
In view of the refusal of respondent Mayor to file the administrative charges, petitioner filed, on January 22, 1963, before the Court of First Instance of Iloilo a petition for mandamus, alleging refusal of respondent Mayor to perform a "ministerial duty" to prefer charges with the Municipal Board of Iloilo City against the said Detective Captain Emeterio Verde in spite of the demands made on him by the petitioner, to the damage and prejudice of the latter. The petition prayed that respondent Mayor be ordered to prefer charges with, or endorse the sworn letter-complaint of November 27, 1962 of petitioner to the City Board of Iloilo City for its appropriate action in accordance with law, to pay petitioner the sum of P3,000.00 for moral damages, P500.00 for attorney’s fees and the costs of the suit.
After hearing, the trial court, on November 20, 1963, rendered a decision dismissing the petition. Hence, this appeal.
The question to be resolved in this case is: Under Section 1 of Republic Act 557, upon the mere filing by any person or entity with the city mayor of a complaint against a city police officer, is it the mandatory duty of the city mayor to prefer charges against the police officer with the city council?
We rule that it is not mandatory, and so mandamus will not lie to compel the city mayor to prefer the charges against a police officer with the city council. We fully concur with the view of the learned trial judge when he resolved this question, as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"En apoyo de la solicitud, la representación del solicitante sostiene que, después de recibir las dos cartas del solicitante (Exhs. A y C), el recurrido tenia el deber ministerial de formular cargos contra el secreta Emeterio Verde. La del recurrido sostiene lo contrario — que el recurrido tiene discreción de formular cargos o no, dependiendo de si hay pruebas o no para establecer dichos cargos.
"Después de estudiadas las pruebas en autos, el Juzgado encuentra que la pretensión del solicitante es insostenible.
"Antes de la aprobación de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica, el Art. 2272 del Codigo Administrativo Revisado, que habla de la presentación de cargos contra un policia y de la investigación de dichos cargos, dice lo siguiente:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
‘Section 2272. Members of the municipal police shall not be removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be discharged except for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Philippine government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties. and violation of law or duty and in such cases charges shall be preferred under oath by the mayor or by any other person and investigated by the municipal council or a committee of three councilors, designated for said purpose by a majority of the council, in public hearing and the accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense.’ (Italics ours)
"El Art. 1 de la Ley No. 557 de la Republica, que ahora habla de la presentación de cargos contra un policia y de su investigación, reza como sigue:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
‘Members of the provincial guards, city police and municipal police shall not be removed and, except in cases of resignation, shall not be discharged, except for misconduct or incompetency, dishonesty, disloyalty to the Philippine government, serious irregularities in the performance of their duties, and violation of law or duty, and in such cases charges shall be preferred by the provincial governor in matters against any member of the provincial guards, the city mayor in cases against a member of the city police, and the municipal mayor in cases involving a member of the municipal police, and investigated by the provincial board, the city or municipal council, as the case may be, in public hearing, and the accused shall be given opportunity to make their defense.’ (Italics ours)
"Mientras seg
