Cuyo v. City Mayor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Romulo Cuyo, a police officer in Baguio City since February 20, 1946, was suspended on June 5, 1951, pending investigation of administrative charges. These charges included insubordination, reprehensible conduct, conduct unbecoming a peace officer, lying, abandoning his post without authority, and being absent without leave. Cuyo had previously faced disciplinary actions, including a reprimand and warning in 1948 and a severe reprimand in April 1951. Procedural History: Following an investigation by a councilor, the Baguio City Council, by Resolution No. 204 on July 20, 1951, ordered Cuyo's dismissal from the police force. Cuyo appealed this decision to the Civil Service Commissioner, who, on December 20, 1951, modified the dismissal, ordering Cuyo's transfer to another branch of the Baguio City Government, finding no abuse of discretion by the city officials but acknowledging prior punishments. A motion for reconsideration was denied on March 13, 1952. Subsequently, on August 1, 1955, Cuyo filed a petition for mandamus and damages in the Court of First Instance of Baguio. The Petition: In the Court of First Instance, Cuyo sought to have the administrative investigation and decision declared null and void, to be reinstated as a police officer, to receive back pay from June 5, 1951, and to be awarded attorney's fees and costs. The Court of First Instance ordered Cuyo's placement in another branch of the city government and awarded back pay, but denied attorney's fees, finding good faith on the part of the respondents. The respondents appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the investigation and dismissal of the petitioner were illegal and null and void ab initio. Whether the petition for mandamus was barred by the implied abandonment of office and laches.
Ruling
The decision appealed from is reversed, and the petition is dismissed, with costs against the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the illegality of the investigation and dismissal: The Court acknowledged that administrative charges against members of the local police force must be investigated by the Municipal or City Council, and an investigation conducted by a member or committee thereof is null and void, citing previous rulings such as Festejo vs. Municipal Mayor of Nabua, Covacha vs. Amante, Carmona vs. Amante, and Sennarillos vs. Hermosisima. However, the Court found that regardless of the legality of the dismissal, the petition for mandamus was barred. On the bar by implied abandonment and laches: The Court reiterated the settled rule that reinstatement of an officer illegally dismissed cannot be secured by mandamus if the action is filed over one (1) year after dismissal. This is because the right to a public office may be lost by abandonment, which can be deduced from failure to seek reinstatement within the one-year period, and because public interest requires speedy determination of the right to public office, as held in Florentino Jose, Jr. vs. Arsenio H. Lacson, Unabia vs. Hon. City Mayor, and Tumulak vs. Egay. In this case, Cuyo's motion for reconsideration was denied on March 13, 1952, and he filed his action on August 1, 1955, approximately three (3) years and five (5) months later. The Court noted that Cuyo himself understood the Civil Service Commissioner's decision as sustaining his removal from the police force, even if modified to a transfer. Therefore, his petition for mandamus was barred by implied abandonment of his office and by laches, consequently failing his claims for backpay and damages.
Main Doctrine
A petition for mandamus to secure the reinstatement of an officer illegally dismissed is barred if filed beyond one (1) year after dismissal, due to implied abandonment of office and laches, regardless of the legality of the dismissal.