Case Digest (G.R. No. L-18878)
Facts:
Celso A. Fernandez was appointed ad interim Chief of Police of Basilan City on January 7, 1954, took his oath the same day, and had his appointment confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on April 21, 1954. On June 8, 1957, President Carlos P. Garcia suspended Fernandez for one month for gross negligence, violation of law, and dereliction of duty; after prosecution rested and without requiring his defense, Fernandez was acquitted in related criminal cases, yet he remained suspended because no formal administrative charges were instituted or investigated.
On April 28, 1959, President Carlos P. Garcia terminated Fernandez’s services and designated Cecilio Ledesma as chief of police, after Ledesma’s nomination was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments; Ledesma then took his oath on May 26, 1959. Fernandez filed quo warranto with mandamus to seek reinstatement, asserting removal without cause in violation of the Constitution, but the Court of First Instance of Basilan City dismissed the complaint, upholding the President’s authority under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 288; Fernandez appealed on questions of law.
Issues:
- Whether the President’s termination of Fernandez’s services as chief of police of Basilan City constituted unlawful removal without cause in violation of the Constitution.
- Whether Section 17 of Republic Act No. 288 authorized the President to end the services of the city chief of police at discretion or pleasure.
Ruling:
The Court affirmed the dismissal of Fernandez’s complaint. It held that Section 17 of Republic Act No. 288 vested in the President the authority to remove at discretion any appointive city officer, including the chief of police, with the sole exception of the municipal judge who could be removed only according to law.
The Court further ruled that Fernandez’s reliance on cases involving offices with fixed terms did not apply because the position of chief of police had no fixed term and was expressly dependent upon the President’s pleasure.
Ratio:
The Court concluded that the legislative intent behind Section 17 was to make continuance in office of appointive officers dependent on the President’s discretion, as shown by the distinction in the law between appointive officers generally and the municipal judge. The absence of any fixed term for the chief of police indicated an intention to allow tenure to endure only at the pleasure of the appointing power.
It rejected Fernandez’s argument that the replacement of Ledesma was tantamount to removal without cause, explaining that the controlling precedent in Alba vs. Alajar treats such replacement, where the office has no fixed term and is held at the President’s pleasure, as an ordinary mode of terminating official relations rather than an unconstitutional removal requiring cause.
Doctrine:
- Under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 288, the President may remove at discretion or pleasure appointive city officers, except the municipal judge who is removable only according to law.
- Where the law makes an office dependent upon the President’s pleasure and does not provide a fixed term, the officer’s replacement or cessation of service is not equivalent to an unconstitutional removal without cause.
- Jurisprudence involving officials with fixed terms does not govern cases involving offices whose tenure depends on the President’s pleasure.
- Under Section 17 of Republic Act No. 288, the President may remove at discretion or pleasure appointive city officers, except the municipal judge who is removable only according to law.
- Where the law makes an office dependent upon the President’s pleasure and does not provide a fixed term, the officer’s replacement or cessation of service is not equivalent to an unconstitutional removal without cause.
- Jurisprudence involving officials with fixed terms does not govern cases involving offices whose tenure depends on the President’s pleasure.