Senarillos vs. Hermosisima

Under Republic Act No. 557, an investigation of a police officer must be conducted by the full municipal council, not by a mere committee thereof; a removal predicated on a committee investigation is void ab initio and cannot be cured by subsequent approval of Civil Service authorities.

Roque Senarillos was a civil service eligible appointed Chief of Police of Sibonga, Cebu. Republic Act No. 557 governed the investigation and removal of municipal police officers and, unlike the prior regime under Section 2272 of the Administrative Code, eliminated the provision authorizing investigation by a committee of the council, thereby requiring that such investigations be conducted by the council itself. The municipal officials arrayed against Senarillos included the Municipal Mayor, the Municipal Council, the Municipal Treasurer, and the Provincial Treasurer of Cebu.

Roque Senarillos, a civil service eligible, was appointed Chief of Police of Sibonga, Cebu, and served in that capacity until January 2, 1952. On that date, upon charges filed by one Roque Geraldizo and despite Senarillos's denials, the Municipal Mayor of Sibonga suspended him. The municipal council, by Resolution No. 2, Series 1952, created a "police committee" composed of three councilors to investigate the charges. Senarillos expressly protested that the investigation should be conducted by the full council, not by a committee, as mandated by Republic Act No. 557. The committee nonetheless proceeded, and on April 15, 1952, it rendered an adverse decision, which was later signed by the municipal council. Senarillos appealed to the Commissioner of Civil Service, who affirmed the decision on August 28, 1952; the Civil Service Board of Appeals later affirmed in October 1954.

In the interim, upon the expiration of the original suspension period, Municipal Mayor Hermosisima suspended Senarillos a second time on the strength of Administrative Case No. V-6, which was never tried. When the sixty-day period of that suspension elapsed, Senarillos was reinstated on May 25, 1952. On July 9, 1952, the Mayor filed a criminal case for swindling against Senarillos and suspended him a third time. The criminal case was dismissed on July 24, 1954. On April 27, 1955, Senarillos filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking reinstatement and back salaries. The trial court granted the writ, declaring the removal null and void, and the respondents appealed.

• Validity of Investigation: Petitioner maintained that under Republic Act No. 557, the investigation of a police officer must be conducted by the full municipal council and not by a mere committee thereof, and that he had protested this impropriety from the outset of the proceedings.
• Active Vigilance Over Rights: Petitioner asserted that his persistent efforts to secure reversal of the municipal council's decision through the Civil Service appellate process, coupled with the harassment of repeated suspensions and a criminal prosecution, demonstrated that he did not sleep on his rights.

• Laches: Respondents claimed that petitioner was guilty of laches, relying on Unabia vs. Mayor of Cebu and related decisions, arguing that the delay between the adverse administrative decision and the filing of the mandamus petition constituted neglect of his rights.
• Good Faith: Respondents implicitly argued that the committee investigation was conducted in good faith, as the municipal council's decision was issued before the Court's ruling in Festejo vs. Mayor of Nabua clarified the requirements of Republic Act No. 557.

• Validity of Committee Investigation: Whether the investigation of a police officer by a committee of the municipal council, rather than the full council, is valid under Republic Act No. 557.
• Effect of Civil Service Affirmance: Whether subsequent affirmance by Civil Service authorities can validate an administrative proceeding that was void ab initio.
• Laches: Whether petitioner was guilty of laches in seeking judicial relief.

• Validity of Committee Investigation: No. Under Republic Act No. 557, the investigation must be conducted by the council itself; a committee of councilors lacks jurisdiction, and any decision rendered thereby is void.
• Effect of Civil Service Affirmance: No. The subsequent reaffirmation by Civil Service authorities could not validate a proceeding that was illegal and void ab initio.
• Laches: No. Petitioner's persistent administrative appeals and the repeated suspensions to which he was subjected demonstrated that he did not sleep on his rights or abandon his office.

• Validity of Committee Investigation: Republic Act No. 557 eliminated the provision, previously existing under Section 2272 of the Administrative Code, that authorized investigation of police officers by a committee of the council. This legislative change signified that the investigation must be conducted by the full council itself, as established in Festejo vs. Mayor of Nabua and reaffirmed in Covacha vs. Amante. The "police committee" created by the Municipal Council of Sibonga therefore had no jurisdiction to investigate Senarillos. His decision was invalid even though it was later concurred in by the rest of the councilors, particularly since Senarillos had called attention to the impropriety from the beginning. The fact that the council's decision antedated Festejo could, at most, attest to good faith but could not sustain the validity of the action, because the Court's interpretation of Republic Act No. 557 constitutes part of the law from the date of its original enactment.

• Effect of Civil Service Affirmance: Because the committee investigation was without jurisdiction and void from the outset, the subsequent affirmance by the Commissioner of Civil Service and the Civil Service Board of Appeals could not cure the fundamental defect. An administrative proceeding that is illegal and void ab initio cannot be validated by appellate administrative review.

• Laches: The respondents' reliance on Unabia vs. Mayor of Cebu was misplaced. Senarillos's persistent efforts to secure reversal through the Civil Service authorities, the harassment of three separate suspensions, and the filing of a criminal case against him all demonstrated active assertion of his rights. His appeal was finally decided by the Civil Service Board of Appeals in October 1954, and the mandamus petition was filed less than a year later, in April 1955 — insufficient time to constitute laches.

• Judicial Construction as Part of the Law — The interpretation placed by the Supreme Court upon a statute constitutes part of the law as of the date the statute was originally passed, because the Court's construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect. Applied here to hold that the Festejo interpretation of Republic Act No. 557 retroacted to the law's enactment, so that the municipal council's pre-Festejo committee investigation could not be sustained on the ground of good faith.

• Void Ab Initio Administrative Proceedings — An administrative proceeding conducted without jurisdiction is void from the beginning and cannot be validated by subsequent administrative review or approval. Applied here to hold that the Civil Service authorities' affirmance of the committee's decision could not cure the jurisdictional defect.

• "The subsequent reaffirmation of their decision by the Civil Service authorities could not validate a proceeding that was illegal and ab initio void." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi that jurisdictional defects in administrative investigations cannot be cured by appellate administrative review.

• "It is elementary that the interpretation placed by this Court upon Republic Act 557 constitutes part of the law as of the date it was originally passed, since this Court's construction merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the interpreted law carried into effect." — This is the canonical formulation of the doctrine that judicial construction operates retroactively to the date of the statute's enactment, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.

• "That the decision of the Municipal Council of Sibonga was issued before the decision in Festejo vs. Mayor of Nabua was rendered, would be, at the most, proof of good faith on the part of the police committee, but can not sustain the validity of their action." — This passage establishes that good faith cannot validate a jurisdictionally defective proceeding, reinforcing the void ab initio doctrine.

• Festejo vs. Mayor of Nabua, 96 Phil. 286 (1954) — Controlling precedent establishing that under Republic Act No. 557, investigations of police officers must be conducted by the full municipal council, not a committee. Followed and applied directly to invalidate the Sibonga committee's investigation.

• Covacha vs. Amante, 52 Off. Gaz. No. 11, p. 5109 (1956) — Reaffirmation of the Festejo doctrine, cited as recent corroboration of the rule requiring full-council investigation.

• Santos vs. Mendoza, 48 Off. Gaz. No. 11, p. 4801 — Distinguished. This earlier case upheld investigation by a committee of the council, but the law was subsequently amended by Republic Act No. 557, which eliminated the committee-investigation provision.

• Unabia vs. Mayor of Cebu, 99 Phil. 258 — Distinguished. Relied upon by respondents for the laches doctrine, but found inapplicable because Senarillos's persistent administrative appeals and the harassment he suffered demonstrated active vigilance over his rights.

• Republic Act No. 557 — Governs the investigation and removal of municipal police officers. The Court held that this law, by eliminating the prior provision authorizing investigation by a committee of the council, requires that investigations be conducted by the full municipal council itself.

• Section 2272, Administrative Code — The prior legal regime under which investigation of police officers by a committee of the council had been authorized and upheld in Santos vs. Mendoza. Republic Act No. 557 superseded this provision by removing the committee-investigation authority.

Paras, C.J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concurred.