Title
Senarillos vs. Hermosisima
Case
G.R. No. L-10662
Decision Date
Dec 14, 1956
Roque Senarillos, a police chief, was suspended multiple times following an invalid investigation by a committee, not the full council as required by law. Courts ruled the investigation void, affirmed his reinstatement, and denied laches due to his persistent legal efforts.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-10662)

Background and Procedural History

Roque Senarillos, a civil service eligible, was appointed Chief of Police of Sibonga and served until January 2, 1952, when he was suspended upon charges filed by Roque Geraldizo. The Municipal Mayor of Sibonga established a "police committee," a three-councilor body created by Resolution No. 2, Series 1952, to investigate the charges against Senarillos. Despite Senarillos’ protest that such an investigation should be conducted by the full municipal council per Republic Act No. 557, the committee proceeded with the investigation, eventually issuing an adverse decision on April 15, 1952. This decision was ratified by the Municipal Council and later affirmed by the Commissioner of Civil Service on August 28, 1952, and by the Civil Service Board of Appeals in October 1954.

Senarillos was subjected to multiple suspensions, including one after the original suspension period expired, which was later followed by reinstatement, then a third suspension due to a criminal swindling case filed by the Mayor, which was dismissed in 1954. Senarillos filed a petition for relief before the Court of First Instance on April 27, 1955, seeking reinstatement and back wages.

Legal Issues: Jurisdiction of Investigative Body and Validity of Removal

The central legal issue focused on whether the investigation and removal of Senarillos by a "police committee" rather than the full municipal council complied with the procedural requirements set forth in Republic Act No. 557. Precedent from this Court, specifically the decision in Festejo vs. Mayor of Nabua, established that investigations of police officers under RA 557 must be conducted by the entire municipal council, not by a committee thereof. This principle was reaffirmed in subsequent rulings such as Covacha vs. Amante and Crispin Carmona vs. Felix P. Amante.

The Court found that the municipal council’s delegation of investigative authority to a three-councilor committee violated the mandatory procedural requirement of full council action. Since Senarillos had timely raised this procedural defect, the investigation and resulting decision were deemed void ab initio. Moreover, the subsequent affirmations of the adverse decision by the Civil Service authorities could not cure this fundamental jurisdictional defect.

Interpretation of Republic Act No. 557 and Retroactive Effect of Court Decisions

Although the municipal council’s decision and committee action occurred before the Court’s interpretation in Festejo, the ruling applied retroactively as a declaration of the true legislative intent of RA 557 at the time of its enactment. Thus, the actions of the "police committee" were ruled ultra vires and void notwithstanding the procedural position taken by respondents at the time.

Claim of Laches and Timeliness of the Petition

Respondents argued that Senarillos was guilty of laches for delay in asserting his rights based on precedent (Unabia vs. Mayor of Cebu). The Court rejected this, observing Senarillos' continuous attempts to seek relief through the Civil Service agencies and his multiple suspensions and harassment by the Municipal Mayor. The petition filed less than a year after the Civil Service Board of Appeals’ final adverse ruling showed due diligence rather than abandonment of his rights.

Court's Ruli

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms