G.R. No. L-10989 - Gacho vs. Osmena

Twenty-seven petitioners were permanently appointed as detectives in the Police Department of Cebu City before May 26, 1956, earning an annual compensation of P1,440 and insured under the Government Service Insurance System.
Among these, twenty were civil service eligibles with varying lengths of service and efficiency ratings, while the remaining petitioners had no civil service eligibility.
Their employment record, including details such as length of service and efficiency ratings, was meticulously recorded and formed part of the evidence.

In 1953, the Mayor of Cebu dismissed several personnel, including twenty petitioners, who were later reinstated following final judgments from competent courts that declared their dismissal illegal.
Judicial decisions in cases such as Mission, et al. vs. Del Rosario, and other similar actions (Saavedra vs. Del Rosario; Miguel Cabaral vs. Del Rosario; and Jose Almeda vs. Del Rosario) mandated the reinstatement of the dismissed detectives.
These decisions underscored the protection of the petitioners’ status as firefighters and validated their right to their positions under existing laws and executive orders.

On February 9, 1955, the Municipal Board of Cebu approved Ordinance No. 188, which provided for budgetary appropriations including:

Item 19 – "Thirty-eight Patrolmen at P1,440 per annum each (transferred from Seventy-one Detectives)" amounting to P54,720.00.
Item 28 – "Thirty-three Detectives at P1,440 per annum each (from Seventy-one Detectives)" amounting to P47,520.00.

The Ordinance was enacted to appropriate funds for the fiscal year 1954-1955, and due to the lack of a new budget, its provisions were reenacted for 1955-1956.
A communication from the Department of Finance clarified that these changes entailed a "change of designation" rather than an abolition of positions, distinguishing them from the separate abolition of sixteen immunization sanitary inspector positions.

On May 12, 1956, the City Mayor issued letters to the petitioners informing them that their positions as detectives had been abolished pursuant to Ordinance No. 188, and that they were being transferred as patrolmen effective May 16, 1956.
Petitioners refused to accept the new appointments, arguing that the shift was a scheme to circumvent Republic Act No. 557, other laws, and judicial decisions protecting their tenure.
The City Auditor and City Treasurer refused to authorize salary payments to the petitioners based on the issuance of these letters.
Petitioners subsequently filed a case against the City Mayor, Municipal Board, City Auditor, City Treasurer, and the Chief of Police, although the City of Cebu was later excluded as a respondent.

Petitioners contended that their dismissal and the alleged abolition of their positions were in violation of:

A preliminary mandatory injunction to reinstate them and direct payment of back salaries.
A final declaration that their positions had not been abolished and that the transfer was void.
Additional reliefs and remedies commensurate with the law.

A chief of police with full control over the police department including organization, discipline, and disposition of the police and detective forces.
An assistant chief whose role includes acting in the absence of the chief of police.
A chief of secret service responsible for detective work.

Both detectives and uniformed policemen shared responsibilities and powers as outlined in Section 35 of the Charter, which was central to the argument regarding the transfer.

Whether Municipal Ordinance No. 188, which provided for the "transfer" of the item for thirty-eight detectives to the patrolmen division, legally amounted to an abolition of the petitioners’ positions as detectives.

Does the change in nomenclature (from "detectives" to "patrolmen") constitute a substantive elimination of their status?
Can a position that has been legally transferred be considered as abolished if it continues to exist in another form or division?
Whether the petitioners’ due process and protections under the Constitution and civil service laws were violated by such a transfer.