ChanRobles™V

Library™ | chanrobles

re
Search

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT

JURISPRUDENCE

Home > ChanRobles Virtual Law

Library > Philippine Supreme Court
Jurisprudence >

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-
21505 October 24,
1963

LUCIO C.
LIBARNES, Petitioner,
vs. THE HON. EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY AND/OR HIS
ASSISTANTS, MAYOR
 TOMAS FERRER OF
ZAMBOANGA CITY and
MAJOR MIGUEL
APOSTOL, Respondents.

Office of the Solicitor General

for respondents.
Rosauro Alvarez for petitioner.

CONCEPCION, J.:

This is an original petition

for quo warranto and
injunction, with preliminary
injunction, with preliminary
injunction and/or mandatory
injunction.chanroble svirtualawl ibraryc hanrobles vi rt ual law li bra ry

Plaintiff Lucio C. Libarnes was,

on January 29, 1959,
nominated by the President of
the Philippines for the office of
Zamboanga City. The
nomination having been
confirmed by the
Appointments on February 25,
1959, Libarnes assumed the
aforementioned office on
March 11, 1959, and
continued discharging the
duties of said office ever
since. On May 16, 1963, the
new Executive designated
defendant Miguel Apostol as
Acting Chief of Police of
Zamboanga City. On May 18,
1963, Apostol took his oath of
office as such acting chief of
police before the Speaker of
the House of Representatives,
in Manila, and soon
thereafter, or on May 23,
1963, defendant Tomas
Ferrer, as City Mayor of
Zamboanga, transmitted to
Libarnes a letter of the Acting
Assistant Executive Secretary,
Office of the President,
Malacañan, dated May 16,
1963, informing him
(Libarnes) that "under the
provisions of Section 34 of the
Charter of Zamboanga City,
as amended, the President"
had terminated his "services
as Chief of Police of said City
effective immediately and ...
designated Major Miguel
Apostol" in his stead and
stating that it would "be
appreciated if" he (Libarnes)
could "turn over the office in
question to Major Apostol
upon receipt" of said
communications. Mayor
Ferrer, furthermore,
requested Libarnes to turn
over his "property
responsibility" with the
property custodian of the
police department. In a
memorandum of the same
date (May 23, 1963) Mayor
Ferrer, likewise, informed all
members of the police force of
Zamboanga City of the
appointment of Apostol and
oath taken by him as acting
head of said force, and
requested them to "take
orders from the new Chief of
Police." However, Libarnes
refused to turn over his office
to Apostol - who tried to take
possession thereof - as well
as his (Libarnes) property
responsibility, and, soon
thereafter, or, on July 5, 1963
he (Libarnes) initiated the
present action for the purpose
of nullifying, the
aforementioned designation of
Apostol as Acting, Chief of
Police of Zamboanga City and
of restraining him, as well as
its mayor, the Executive
Secretary and their
subordinates, assistants or
persons acting under them, or
for or in their behalf, from
molesting Libarnes in the
possession of the office in
question or in the exercise
and enjoyment of the
functions and prerogatives
thereof. Plaintiff's complaint is
anchored upon the theory
that, under the provisions of
Section 5 of Republic Act No.
2259 and of the Civil Service
Law (Republic Act No.
2260),he is entitled to hold
said office until removed for
cause, which is not claimed to
exist in his case, and "after
due process", which, he
asserts, has been denied
him.chanroble svi rtualawl ib raryc hanrobles vi rt ual law li bra ry

Upon the other hand,

defendants maintain that the
disputed designation of
defendant Apostol is perfectly
valid because, as Chief of
Police of Zamboanga City,
plaintiff held said office at the
pleasure of the President,
pursuant to Section 34 of the
Charter of said City, or
Commonwealth Act No. 39,
reading:

Appointment and removal, of

officials and employees
compensation. - The President
shall appoint, with the
consent of the Commission on
Appointments of the National
Assembly, the Judges of the
Municipal Court, the city
treasurer, the city engineer,
the city assessor, the city
attorney, the chief of
policeand the other heads of
the city departments as may
be created from time to time,
and he may remove at
pleasure any of the said
appointive officials, except the
Judges of the Municipal Court,
who may be removed only
according to law.

and that this provision has not

been amended by said
Republic Acts Nos. 2259 and
2260. chanroblesv irt ualawli bra rychan rob les vi rtual law lib rary

Defendants' contention cannot

be upheld, for said Section 34
of Commonwealth Act No. 39
is inconsistent with Section 5
of Republic Act No. 2259,
which provides:

The incumbent appointive City

Mayors, Vice-Mayors and
Councilors, unless sooner
removed or suspended for
cause, shall continue in office
until their successors shall
have been elected in the next
general elections for local
officials and shall have
qualified. Incumbent
appointive city secretaries
shall, unless sooner removed
or suspended for cause,
continue in office until an
elective city council or
municipal board shall have
been elected and qualified;
thereafter the city secretary
shall be elected by majority
vote of the elective city
council or municipal board. All
other city officials now
appointed by the President of
the Philippines may not be
removed from office except
for cause.
and section 9 of said Republic
Act No. 2259 expressly
repeals "all acts or parts of
acts ... inconsistent with the
provisions" thereof. chanroblesvi rtua lawlib rary chan roble s virtual law l ibra ry

It is conceded that the Chief

of Police of Zamboanga city is
a member of our civil service
system (Section 5, Republic
Act No. 2260). Hence, he
cannot be "removed or
suspended except for cause,
as provided by law and after
due process" (Section 33,
Republic Act No. 2260). It
cannot be denied that the
attempt to terminate the
services of plaintiff herein,
as de jure holder of said
office, entailed his removal
therefrom, even more than
the attempt to transfer the
provincial fiscal of Negros
Oriental and the City Engineer
of Baguio City without their
consent was held in Lacson
vs. Romero (47 Off. Gaz.,
1778) and De los Santos v.
Mallare (87 Phil. 289) to
constitute an illegal removal
from their respective
offices.
chanroble svi rtualawl ib raryc hanrobles vi rt ual law li bra ry

Defendant argue that the

above quoted provision in
Section 5 of Republic Act No.
2259 is inapplicable to the
case at bar because plaintiff
herein has not
been removed from office, his
term of office having
merely expiredwhen the
President terminated his
services. Suffice it to say, that
this attempt to terminate
plaintiff's services Was
predicated upon said Section
34 of Commonwealth Act No.
39, pursuant to which the
Executive may "remove at
pleasure" the Chief of Police
of Zamboanga City, and that
this is the reason why section
5 of Republic Act No. 2259
speaks, also, of removal to
indicate that it seeks to
withdraw, or
eliminate precisely such
power to "remove at
pleasure" under
Commonwealth Act No. 39,
among other pertinent
legislations.
chanroblesv irtualawli bra rycha nrob les vi rtua l law lib rary

Again, the question whether

or not a special law has been
repealed or amended by one
or more subsequent general
laws is independent mainly
upon the intent of Congress in
enacting the latter. The
discussions on the floor of
Congress show beyond doubt
that its members intended to
amend or repeal all provisions
of special laws inconsistent
with the provisions of
Republic Act No. 2259, except
those which are expressly
excluded from the operation
thereof. In fact, the
explanatory note to Senate
Bill No. 2, which, upon
approval, become Republic
Act No. 2259, Specifically
mentions Zamboanga City,
among others that had been
considered by the authors of
the bill in drafting the same.
Similarly, Section 1 of
Republic Act No. 2259 makes
reference to "all chartered
cities in the Philippines",
whereas Section 8 excludes
from the operation of the Act
"the cities of Manila, Cavite,
Trece Martires and Tagaytay",
and Section 4 contains a
proviso exclusively for the
City of Baguio, thus showing
clearly that all cities not
particularly excepted from the
provisions of said Act -
including, therefore, the City
of Zamboanga - are subject
thereto.chanroblesv irt ualawli bra rycha nrob les vi rtua l law lib rary

The case of Fernandez vs.

Ledesma, L-18878 (March 30,
1963), relied upon by the
defendants herein, is not in
point, the termination of the
services of the officer involved
in the Fernandez case having
taken place on April 28, 1959,
or prior to the approval of
Republic Act No. 2259, on
June 19, 1959, whereas
plaintiff herein was advised of
the attempt to terminate his
services on May 23, 1963, or
almost four (4)
years aftersaid legislation had
become effective. chanroblesv irt ualawli bra rycha nrob les vi rtua l law lib rary

It is next urged, however,

that the provision in. Section
5 of Republic Act No. 2259, to
the effect that "all other
officials now appointed by the
President of the Philippines
may not be removed from
office except for cause" is a
rider violative of the
constitutional injunction that
"no bill which maybe enacted
into law shall embrace more
than one subject which shall
be expressed in the title of
the bill", that of Republic Act
No. 2259, being:

AN ACT MAKING ELECTIVE

THE OFFICES OF MAYOR,
VICE-MAYOR AND
COUNCILORS IN CHARTERED
CITIES, REGULATING THE
ELECTION IN SUCH CITIES
AND FIXING THE SALARIES
AND TENURE OF SUCH
OFFICERS.

It is claimed that the contents

of the aforementioned
provision are alien to the
subject of this title and that
consequently said provision is
unconstitutional. This
pretense is untenable. As
stated in the explanatory note
to the aforementioned Senate
Bill No. 2, the purpose thereof
is to establish "uniformity in
the number of city officials in
the manner in which they are
to be chosen, in the extent of
their powers, duties and
functions", as well as equality
in the rights and privileges
enjoyed by the residents of
said cities, particularly the
right to choose the officials
who should be at the helm of
their respective city
governments". Obviously, the
matter of the conditions under
which local officials appointed
by the President may be
removed from office not only
is germane to such purpose,
but, also, forms as essential
part thereof.chanroblesvi rt ualawlib ra rychan roble s virtual law lib rary

Furthermore, as stated
in Inchong vs. Hernandez,
G.R. No. L-7995 (May 31,
1957):

One purpose of the

constitutional directive that
the subject of a bill should be
embraced in its title is to
apprise the legislators of the
purposes, the nature and
scope of its provisions, and
prevent the enactment into
law of matters which have not
received the notice, action
and study of the legislators or
of the public. In the case at
bar, it cannot be claimed that
the legislators have not been
apprised of the nature of the
law, especially the
nationalization and prohibition
provisions. The legislators
took active interest in the
discussion of the law ... .

In the case at bar, the

provision in question was,
similarly, debated upon on the
floor of Congress, whose
members were, therefore,
actually aware of its
existence.chanroble svirtualawl ibra rycha nrob les vi rtua l law lib rary

WHEREFORE, we hold that

said provision in Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 2259 is
constitutional and valid; that
as Chief of Police of
Zamboanga City, plaintiff
Libarnes is entitled to the
benefits of the
aforementioned provision;
and that, pursuant thereto
and to Section 32 of Republic
Act No. 2260, he no longer
holds the office at the
pleasure of the Executive, and
may be removed therefrom
only "for cause as provided by
law and after due process",
and, accordingly, judgment is
hereby rendered declaring
that plaintiff Lucio C. Libarnes
is still the de jure Chief of
Police of Zamboanga City, and
 that, as such, he is entitled to
continue holding said office
and discharging the powers
and duties thereof, and,
consequently, enjoining the
defendants herein, as well as
their subordinates or persons
acting in their behalf, to
refrain from molesting the
plaintiff, or otherwise
interfering in the possession
of said office, and in the
discharge of the powers and
duties attached thereto, with
costs against said defendants.
It is so ordered. chanroble svirtualawl ibra ryc hanrob les vi rtua l law lib rary

Bengzon, C.J., Padilla,

Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Paredes, Dizon, Regala and
Makalintal, JJ., concur.

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT

JURISPRUDENCE

190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 192
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 194
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 196
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 198
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 201 201 201 201 201
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4

FEATURED
DECISIONScralaw
 Search for www.chanrobles.com

Search

QUICK SEARCH

190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 190 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 191 192
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 193 194
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 194 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 195 196
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 196 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 197 198
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 198 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 200
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 201 201 201
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2

ight © 1998 - 2018 ChanRoblesPublishing Company| Disclaimer | E-mailRestrictions ChanRobles™Virtual Law Library ™ | chanrobles.com™