Saturday, December 28, 2019

[CASE DIGEST] JOSE S. ANDAYA and EDGARDO L. INCIONG vs. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Cebu City, Branch 20, and THE CITY OF CEBU (G.R. No. 126661)


December 3, 1999
 
Ponente: Pardo, J.

FACTS:

·         On January 3, 1996, the position of City Director, Cebu City Police Command (chief of police) became vacant after P/Supt. Antonio Enteria was relieved of command.

·         In the same month, P/Chief Supt. Jose S. Andaya (Regional Director of the Regional Police Command No. 7) submitted to the mayor of Cebu City a list of five (5) eligibles from among whom the mayor shall choose one to be appointed as the chief of police of Cebu City. 

·         The mayor did not choose anyone from the list of five (5) recommendees because the name of P/Chief Inspector Andres Sarmiento – referred to in the ponentia as the mayor's "protege" – was not included therein.

·         Andaya refused to include Major Sarmiento in the list on the ground that the latter was not qualified for the vacant position. Andaya claimed that Major Sarmiento had not yet attained the rank of Police Superintendent and was yet to complete the Officers Senior Executive Course, both of which are minimum requirements for Directors of Provincial/City Police Commands as per NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04.

·         Due to the impasse, the City of Cebu filed before the RTC of Cebu City a complaint for declaratory relief with preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and temporary restraining order against Andaya and Edgardo L. Inciong (Regional Director of NAPOLCOM). 

·         In their answer, Andaya and Inciong sought for the dismissal of the complaint for lack of legal basis and failure to exhaust administrative rememdies. They countered that the power to designate the chief of police of Cebu City is vested in Andaya as the Regional Director of Regional Police Command No. 7. However, the mayor is authorized to choose the chief of police from a list of five (5) eligibles submitted by the Regional Director. In case of conflict between the Regional Director and the mayor, the issue shall be elevated to the Regional Director of NAPOLCOM, who shall resolve the issue within five (5) working days from receipt and whose decision on the choice of the chief of police shall be final and executory. 

·         RTC: Judge Ferdinand J. Marcos of the Cebu City RTC ruled in favor of the City of Cebu, declaring that P/CInsp. Andres Sarmiento is qualified under RA 6975 to be appointed as Chief Director or Chief of Police of the Cebu City Police Command and whose name must be included in the list of five (5) eligibles recommended as regular replacement to the position of the Chief of Police of said Cebu City Police Command.

·         Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari on pure question of law.

RULING: 

Petition granted.

Decision of the RTC reversed. The SC upholds the sole discretion of Regional Director Andaya to submit to the mayor of Cebu City a list of five (5) eligibles from which the mayor shall choose the chief of police. In case of the mayor's refusal to make his choice within a given period due to disagreement as to the eligible nominees, the issue shall be submitted to the Regional Director of NAPOLCOM, whose decision shall be final.

Whether the mayor of Cebu City may require P/Chief Supt. Andaya to include Sarmiento in the list of five eligibles from among whom the mayor shall choose the chief of police of the City of Cebu. – NO.

·         MAYOR OF CEBU CITY: NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular No. 95-04, which prescribes additional minimum qualifications for Directors of Provincial/City Police Commands, is not valid as it contravenes Sec. 51 of R.A. No. 6975*, which gives authority to the mayor to choose the chief of police from a list of five (5) eligibles recommended by the Regional Director.

·         SC: The National Police Commission has issued Memorandum Circular No. 95-04, dated January 12, 1995, for the implementation of R.A. 6975. It provides that among the qualifications for chief of police of highly urbanized cities are (1) completion of the Officers Senior Executive Course (OSEC) and (2) holding the rank of Police Superintendent.

·         Under Sec. 51 of R.A. No. 6975, the mayor of Cebu City shall be deputized as representative of NAPOLCOM in his territorial jurisdiction and as such the mayor shall have authority to choose the chief of police from a list of five (5) eligibles recommended by the Police Regional Director. Then, the Regional Director, Regional Police Command No. 7 appoints the officer selected by the mayor as the chief of police of Cebu City. The City Police Station of Cebu City is under the direct command and control of the PNP Regional Director, Regional Police Command No. 7, and is equivalent to a provincial office.

·         As deputy of the NAPOLCOM, the authority of the mayor is very limited. In reality, he has no power of appointment; he has only the limited power of selecting one from among the list of five eligibles to be named the chief of police. The power to appoint the chief of police of Cebu City is vested in the Regional Director of Regional Police Command No. 7. Much less may the mayor require said Regional Director to include the name of any officer, no matter how qualified, in the list of five to be submitted to the mayor. The purpose is to enhance police professionalism and to isolate the police service from political domination.

·         It is the prerogative of the Regional Director to name the five (5) eligibles from a pool of eligible officers screened by the Senior Officers Promotion and Selection Board, Headquarters, Philippine National Police, Camp Crame, Quezon City, without interference from local executives. In case of disagreement between the Regional Police Director and the Mayor, the question shall be elevated to the Regional Director of NAPOLCOM, who shall resolve the issue within five (5) working days from receipt and whose decision on the choice of the Chief of Police shall be final and executory.

RTC ruling void

·         The trial court erred in granting preliminary injunction that effectively restrained Regional Director Andaya from performing his statutory function. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by the said court is contrary to law and thus void. Similarly, the lower court's decision sustaining the City Mayor's position suffers from the same legal infirmity.