Tobias v. Veloso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondent Tomas C. Lujan was appointed Chief of Police of Cabatuan, Iloilo. Petitioner Mayor Francisco C. Tobias filed administrative charges against Lujan for Bribery and Corrupt Practices, and Grave Misconduct and Serious Irregularities for the loss of his service pistol. Lujan was suspended effective December 20, 1972. NAPOLCOM reprimanded Lujan in the bribery case and exonerated him in the grave misconduct case. NAPOLCOM lifted Lujan's suspension on October 2, 1973. Upon reporting for duty, Lujan submitted vouchers for back salaries. The Municipal Council authorized payment but deducted P1,000.00 for the lost pistol and a P40.00 fine. The Mayor intended to veto this resolution and sought clarification from NAPOLCOM regarding Lujan's entitlement to back salaries due to the reprimand. Procedural History: Lujan filed a petition for mandamus to compel the Mayor to approve his voucher for back salaries. The trial court granted the writ, ordering the Mayor to pay back salaries and attorney's fees. The Mayor's motion for reconsideration, after receiving NAPOLCOM's opinion that Lujan was not entitled to back salaries due to the reprimand, was denied. The trial court ruled that the opinion of the NAPOLCOM official could not prevail over Civil Service Rules. The Mayor appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner Mayor Tobias sought reversal of the trial court's judgment, arguing that Lujan was not entitled to back salaries because he was reprimanded, not exonerated, and that the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ of mandamus. The Mayor also questioned the award of attorney's fees and sought to pursue his counterclaim for the value of the lost service pistol.
Issue(s)
Whether the Police Act of 1966 applies to police service. Whether a reprimand constitutes an exoneration or a penalty. Whether mandamus lies against a public officer acting in good faith to protect municipal interests. Whether the award of attorney's fees against the petitioner is tenable. Whether the dismissal of the counterclaim for the value of the lost service pistol was proper.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court. It held that the petitioner Mayor could not be compelled by mandamus to pay respondent Chief of Police his back salaries, and the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion. The Court also ruled that respondent Tomas C. Lujan shall pay the Municipality of Cabatuan, Iloilo, the sum of P2,000.00 for the lost service pistol, plus P40.00 as administrative fine.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of the Police Act of 1966: The Court affirmed that the Police Act of 1966 (Republic Act No. 4864) applies to police service, as it created the Police Commission and revised laws relative to the local police system. Since respondent Lujan was a Chief of Police, he falls within the purview of this Act. Section 16 of the Act explicitly states that a suspended member of the police force is entitled to salary during the period of suspension only upon exoneration. This provision is reiterated in Section 4, Rule X of the Police Manual and Section 7 of Presidential Decree No. 12-A, both emphasizing entitlement to back salaries upon exoneration. On whether a reprimand constitutes exoneration or a penalty: The Court held that a reprimand is a penalty and cannot be equated with exoneration. While former Civil Service Rules considered admonition or warning as not a penalty, a reprimand is defined as a public and formal censure or severe reproof, administered by a superior. It is considered an administrative penalty, albeit a slight one, and is listed as a disciplinary punishment in the Police Manual and Memorandum Circular No. 8, series of 1970, of the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Decree (PD No. 807) also lists reprimand as a penalty. Therefore, since Lujan was reprimanded, he was not exonerated and is not entitled to back salaries. On whether mandamus lies against the petitioner: The Court ruled that mandamus does not lie against petitioner Mayor Tobias. The Mayor acted with prudence and discretion in withholding payment of back salaries until higher administrative authorities ruled on its legality, especially in light of the NAPOLCOM's opinion. His actions were aimed at protecting the municipality's interest and ensuring the proper disbursement of public funds. Compelling him to pay back salaries when Lujan was not exonerated would be erroneous. Thus, the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in issuing the writ. On the award of attorney's fees: The award of attorney's fees was deemed untenable because the writ of mandamus, which was the basis for the claim, was improperly granted. Since the primary claim for back salaries was denied, the consequential award for attorney's fees must also be set aside. On the counterclaim for the lost service pistol: The Court found that the dismissal of the counterclaim for lack of evidence was improper. Documents, including indorsements from the Auditor General and a certification from the Municipal Treasurer, clearly indicated that the loss of the service pistol occurred through Lujan's fault or negligence. The Auditor General denied Lujan's request for relief from property accountability and required him to pay the value of the pistol at its current price plus an administrative fine. The evidence supported the claim for P2,000.00 for the pistol and P40.00 as an administrative fine.
Main Doctrine
A member of the police force suspended pending investigation is entitled to back salaries only upon exoneration. A reprimand, being an administrative penalty, does not constitute exoneration, thus disentitling the suspended official from claiming back salaries.