Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • De Guzamn vs. Subido

    Uploaded by

    Romel John M. Moit
    23 views2 pages
    Ernesto de Guzman was appointed as a patrolman in the Quezon City Police Department in 1965. In 1967, his appointment was returned by the Commissioner of Civil Service because Ernesto was disqualified for having a criminal record, citing violations of municipal ordinances for jaywalking and improper seating in a horse-drawn carriage. The Supreme Court ruled that violations of municipal ordinances do not constitute a criminal record and do not disqualify one from public appointment. The termination of Ernesto's appointment was also illegal as the commissioner did not act on the appointment papers within 180 days. Ernesto was reinstated to his appointment with back pay.

    Original Description:

    Crim Law I

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Ernesto de Guzman was appointed as a patrolman in the Quezon City Police Department in 1965. In 1967, his appointment was returned by the Commissioner of Civil Service because Ernesto was disqualified for having a criminal record, citing violations of municipal ordinances for jaywalking and improper seating in a horse-drawn carriage. The Supreme Court ruled that violations of municipal ordinances do not constitute a criminal record and do not disqualify one from public appointment. The termination of Ernesto's appointment was also illegal as the commissioner did not act on the appointment papers within 180 days. Ernesto was reinstated to his appointment with back pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    23 views2 pages

    De Guzamn vs. Subido

    Uploaded by

    Romel John M. Moit
    Ernesto de Guzman was appointed as a patrolman in the Quezon City Police Department in 1965. In 1967, his appointment was returned by the Commissioner of Civil Service because Ernesto was disqualified for having a criminal record, citing violations of municipal ordinances for jaywalking and improper seating in a horse-drawn carriage. The Supreme Court ruled that violations of municipal ordinances do not constitute a criminal record and do not disqualify one from public appointment. The termination of Ernesto's appointment was also illegal as the commissioner did not act on the appointment papers within 180 days. Ernesto was reinstated to his appointment with back pay.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Group 1 Abenoja

    DE GUZMAN v. SUBIDO
    G.R. No. L-31683
    January 31, 1983
    Gutierrez, Jr., J.:

    Facts:
    Ernesto de Guzman was an appointed patrolman in the Quezon City Police
    Department by Mayor Norberto S. Amoranto on August 16, 1965. He was a civil
    service eligible having taken and passed the civil service patrolman’s
    examination given on November 24, 1962. He had also passed the usual
    character investigation conducted before appointment. As a newly appointed
    patrolman, the petitioner went through and successfully completed the police
    training course. On March 21, 1966, the petitioner’s appointment was forwarded
    to the Commissioner of Civil Service. A year after the appointment, that is August
    18, 1965, no action on the appointment papers has been taken by the
    respondent commissioner and the city treasurer and city auditor stopped the
    payment of the petitioner’s salaries. On May 12, 1967, Subido returned Ernesto’s
    appointment papers to the city mayor because Ernesto was disqualified for the
    appointment under R.A. 4864 the Police Act of 1996. The Police Act stipulates
    that no person shall be appointed if the person has criminal records (Sec. 9 [5]).
    The disqualification was based on the ground that Ernesto has violated a city
    ordinance of jaywalking and another ordinance requiring a cochero to occupy
    only the seat for a cochero in a calesa.

    Ernesto filed a petition for certiorari (To be fully informed) and mandamus
    (perform, or refrain from performing, a particular act) with preliminary mandatory
    injunction with the Court of Instance (CFI) but it was dismissed.

    Issue: Whether or not a violation or conviction of the municipal ordinances


    constitutes criminal record disqualifying the petitioner for appointment.

    Ruling:

    No. The violation of said ordinances does not constitute a criminal record,
    thus, reinstating Ernesto of his appointment. A penalty imposed for the breach of
    a municipal regulation is not necessarily an exercise of the sovereign authority, to
    define crimes and provide for their punishment, delegated to a local government.
    The penalty is merely intended not to render the ordinance inoperative or
    useless. The phrase “criminal record” governing qualifications for appointments
    could not have been intended by the legislature to automatically cover every
    violation of a municipal or city ordinance carrying a sanction of a nominal fine to
    enforce it. A violation of a municipal ordinance to qualify as a crime must involve
    at least a certain degree of evil doing, immoral conduct, corruption, malice, or
    want of principles reasonably related to the requirements of public office. The
    termination of his appointment is also illegal and invalid because in accordance
    with Rule IV of Civil Service Rules and Regulations, the commissioner had 180
    days from receipt of the appointment papers to act on them otherwise the
    appointment is approved as properly made. It is noted that the respondent
    commissioner returned the papers for more than a year from date of
    appointment.

    The petitioner is reinstated to his appointment provided he meets the age,


    physical, and other qualifications and eligibilities for patrolman under present
    legislation and rules. Also, the petitioner should have the unpaid services and
    allowances for services actually rendered and five years back pay from the date
    his services actually terminate.

    You might also like