Scribd
Upload
553 views1 page

De Guzman v. Subido (Case Digest)

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 due to violations of city ordinances for jaywalking and improper seating in a carriage. The court ruled that violations of city ordinances do not constitute a criminal record that would disqualify someone from public appointment. It also found Ernesto's termination to be illegal as the commissioner did not act on the appointment within 180 days as required. Ernesto was reinstated to his position, provided he still met qualifications, and was entitled to back pay and allowances.

Uploaded by

davebarce
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
553 views1 page

De Guzman v. Subido (Case Digest)

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 due to violations of city ordinances for jaywalking and improper seating in a carriage. The court ruled that violations of city ordinances do not constitute a criminal record that would disqualify someone from public appointment. It also found Ernesto's termination to be illegal as the commissioner did not act on the appointment within 180 days as required. Ernesto was reinstated to his position, provided he still met qualifications, and was entitled to back pay and allowances.

Uploaded by

davebarce
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

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 and mandamus with preliminary mandatory
injunction with the CFI but it was dismissed.

Issue: Whether or not the violation of the city ordinances constitute 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 terminates.

You might also like