Facts:

The case involves Ricardo Cabaluna as the petitioner against Honorio Ventura, Chief of the Executive Bureau, and Felipe Agoncillo, Secretary of the Interior, as respondents. The events leading to this case began on October 16, 1923, when Cabaluna, who was serving as the chief of police of Iloilo, was suspended by the provincial governor due to an ongoing prosecution for alleged unfaithfulness in office (prevaricacion). Following his conviction in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Cabaluna appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court ultimately reversed the judgment, leading to his acquittal (People vs. Cabaluna, G.R. No. 21461). After his acquittal, the provincial governor, Ruperto Montinola, issued an executive order reinstating Cabaluna to his position and stating that he would be entitled to receive his full salary for the period of suspension, pending approval from the Secretary of the Interior. However, the Secretary of the Interior disapproved this order, citing th...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Ricardo Cabaluna, the petitioner, formerly held the position of chief of police in the municipality of Iloilo.
• On October 16, 1923, he was suspended from office by the provincial governor due to the pendency of a criminal prosecution for alleged unfaithfulness in office (prevarication).

Proceedings in the Criminal Case

• Cabaluna was convicted in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo.
• Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the judgment was reversed, and he was ultimately acquitted (People vs. Cabaluna, G.R. No. 21461).

Reinstatement and Executive Order

• After his final acquittal, Governor Ruperto Montinola published an executive order reinstating Cabaluna as chief of police.
• The order stated: "upon the reinstatement, the incumbent shall be entitled to draw his full salary during the period of his suspension, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior."
• This executive order was processed through the usual administrative channels via the Chief of the Executive Bureau to Secretary Felipe Agoncillo.

Administrative Dispute Over Withheld Salary

• The executive order was returned to Governor Montinola disapproved by the Secretary of the Interior based on the opinion of the Attorney-General.
• The disapproval centered on the contention that the chief of police is not a municipal officer within the meaning of section 2192 of the Administrative Code, and thus no law required the payment of the salary accruing during the suspension.

Petition for Mandamus

• Cabaluna filed an amended petition for a writ of mandamus against both Secretary Agoncillo and Chief of the Executive Bureau, seeking to compel them to order the payment of the withheld salary.
• A demurrer was filed by the Attorney-General on behalf of the respondents, and the matter was submitted to the court for determination of the presented questions.

Issue:

Classification of the Chief of Police

• Whether the chief of police qualifies as a municipal officer within the meaning of section 2192 of the Administrative Code.
• Analysis of statutory definitions, including the interpretive guidance provided by section 2 of the Administrative Code, in determining the scope of “municipal officer.”

Discretionary Nature of Salary Payment

• Whether, assuming the chief of police is a municipal officer, the Secretary of the Interior can be compelled to reverse his action and approve the executive order authorizing the payment of the withheld salary.
• Consideration of the statutory language “may order” and whether it implies mandatory action or discretionary power on the part of the Department Head.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)