Borres v. Canonoy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In 1968, petitioner Eulogio Borres was the acting mayor of Cebu City, and respondent Silverio Parages was a permanent detective in the Cebu Police Department. On November 14, 1968, based on verbal complaints of molesting businessmen and unsatisfactory performance, Mayor Borres issued a memorandum ordering Parages' detail to his office. Parages refused to receive and comply with the order, deeming it illegal. Procedural History: On December 7, 1968, Parages filed a petition for prohibition and injunction. The court did not issue a preliminary injunction but set the case for hearing. Meanwhile, Borres charged Parages with insubordination and neglect of duty and ordered his suspension. Parages amended his petition to include a prayer for the declaration of illegality of his suspension. The trial court declared the detail order and the subsequent suspension order illegal, ordering Parages' reinstatement and back salaries. The motion for reconsideration was denied, and execution pending appeal was granted. The Petition: Petitioner Borres filed a petition for review on certiorari, questioning the legality of the Mayor's power to detail and suspend Parages.
Issue(s)
Whether the Mayor of Cebu City has the power to order the detail of a police detective under the Revised Charter of Cebu, and whether administrative orders and circulars apply to this power. Whether the Mayor has the power to suspend a police detective for refusing to comply with a detail order, and whether the detail order and subsequent suspension order violate the detective's security of tenure. Whether the suspension order was invalid due to procedural issues, and whether the detective's refusal to obey the detail order constitutes grave misconduct.
Ruling
The decision of the lower court is set aside. The questioned detail and suspension orders are declared legal and with full force and effect.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Mayor's power to detail and the applicability of administrative orders and circulars: The Court held that the Mayor's power to detail respondent Parages is included in his power of control and supervision over the Police Department, as expressly provided in Sections 19 and 32 of the Revised Charter of Cebu. Citing Mondano vs. Silvosa and Rodriguez, et al. vs. Montinola, et al., the Court defined supervision as overseeing subordinates' duties and control as the power to alter, modify, or nullify subordinate actions. The Mayor's power to see that officers discharge their duties properly, as granted by Section 20, also supports this power to detail, especially when reports of unsatisfactory performance necessitate closer observation. The Court reasoned that if a Mayor can transfer employees permanently, he can certainly order a temporary detail. The Court further clarified that Section 90 of the Charter, which outlines the Chief of Police's duties, does not limit the Mayor's power but rather recognizes the Mayor's authority to direct personnel assignments and transfers within the police department. The Court found Administrative Order No. 42 and Memorandum Circulars Nos. 45 and 29 of the Civil Service Commission inapplicable. These apply to national government departments and are general laws that cannot prevail over the specific charter of Cebu, which grants the Mayor exclusive power. The Court emphasized the need for immediate action by local executives for efficient and honest government, stating that requiring prior Civil Service approval would jeopardize governmental stability and efficiency. The case of Lejano vs. Garcia was distinguished as it involved a transfer amounting to a new appointment, not a temporary detail. On security of tenure and the validity of the suspension order: The Court ruled that a temporary detail made in the interest of public service, absent manifest abuse of discretion or improper motive, is neither removal nor suspension and thus does not violate the constitutional provision on security of tenure. The Court noted that the alleged bad faith of the petitioner was not clearly established and any doubt should be resolved in his favor. The principle of public office being a public trust was invoked, suggesting that security of tenure yields to the fundamental postulate of public trust. The Court rejected the contention that the suspension was invalid because it preceded the formal filing of the complaint. It was noted that the suspension order was to take effect only upon receipt, and it was likely received after the complaint was filed. The filing of the petition for prohibition and injunction did not automatically invalidate the suspension order, as the lower court had not restrained its implementation. On grave misconduct: The Court found that the obstinate refusal to obey the detail order constituted grave misconduct, a valid ground for suspension under Section 16 of the Polcom Law, even if initially denominated as neglect of duty.
Main Doctrine
The Mayor of Cebu City possesses the power to order the detail of a police officer under his general power of control and supervision over the Police Department, and such detail, when made in the interest of the service and absent manifest abuse of discretion, does not violate the officer's security of tenure. Suspension for refusal to comply with a lawful detail order is also valid.