Professional Documents
Culture Documents
De Guzamn vs. Subido
De Guzamn vs. Subido
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.
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.