Title
Gacho vs. Osmena
Case
G.R. No. L-10989
Decision Date
May 28, 1958
Detective Petitioners, dismissed and reinstated, challenged Ordinance No. 188 transferring roles; Supreme Court deemed positions not abolished, ordered reinstatement and back salaries.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10989)

Background of Employment and Dismissal

Prior to May 26, 1956, the petitioners were permanent employees as detectives in the Cebu City Police Department, drawing an annual salary of P1,440 and benefiting from government insurance. A significant portion of them were civil service eligible, having varying lengths of service and efficiency ratings. In 1953, the Mayor of Cebu dismissed 20 of these detectives, who successfully challenged their dismissals in court, leading to their reinstatement.

Municipal Ordinance No. 188

The Cebu Municipal Board enacted Ordinance No. 188 on February 9, 1955, appropriating operational funds for the city for the fiscal year 1954-1955. The ordinance detailed budget allocations, including a transfer of positions from detectives to patrol officers. Respondent Mayor subsequently informed the petitioners that their positions as detectives were abolished effective immediately, effective May 16, 1956, and they were offered new appointments as patrolmen.

Allegations of Illegal Dismissal

In their petition against the Mayor and other city officials, the petitioners argued that this action was a scheme to circumvent existing laws and prior judicial decisions. They contended that Ordinance No. 188 did not lawfully abolish their positions but merely sought to reassign them under different designations without proper adherence to legal protocols or due process.

Respondents' Defense

Respondents claimed the original appointments of the petitioners did not contain the term "permanent," thereby permitting the City to abolish old positions and create new ones. They argued that the new appointments as patrolmen were legitimate and not wrongful dismissals, thereby negating the applicability of the constitutional provisions cited by petitioners.

Legal Analysis of Position Abolition

The core legal issue centered around whether the positions of petitioners had indeed been abolished by Ordinance No. 188. The Court analyzed the language of the ordinance, noting the discrepancy between the terms "transfer" and "abolish," concluding that the ordinance implied a retention of the positions due to the lack of explicit abolition language. Moreover, it underscored that both detectives and patrolmen shared similar roles within the police department, contrasting it with past cases of explicit position abolishment within different contexts.

Judicial Findings and Conclusions

The Court ruled that

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.