Antonio Uy, petitioner-appellant, vs. Jose Rodriguez, Mayor of the City of Cebu, respondent-appellee, G.R. no. L-6772, July 30, 1954 [Supreme Court decisions].

Title

Language

English

Source

XIX (10) October 31, 1954

Year

1954

Subject

Detectives – Dismissal of

Civil service policy

Administrative law

Mandamus

Philippines. Supreme Court

Appellate court

Philippines. Court of First Instance – Cebu City

Public officers – Cebu City

Mayors – Cebu City

Uy, Antonio

Rodriguez, Jose

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

The petitioner Antonio Uy appealed from a decision of the Court of First Instance dismissing the petition for mandamus against Jose Rodriguez. The petitioner states that he is not civil service eligibility, but his record shows that his appointment as a member of the detective force was temporary for periods of three (3) months and had been reappointed every three (3) months until his separation. The court's decision is reversed and that the City Mayor is ordered to reinstate the petitioner to his former position with the right to arrears in salary from the time of his separation to the date of his reinstatement.

Fulltext

Article 795 of this same new Civil Code expressly provides: "The validity of a will as to its form depends upon the observan<:f' of the law in forcP at the time it ls made." The above provision iR but an expression or statement of the weight of authority to the effect that the validity of a will is to be judged not by the law in force at the time of the testator's death or at the time the supposed will is presented in court for probate or when the petition ts decided by the court but at the time the instrument was executed. One reason in support of the rule is that although the will operates upon and a fter the death of thp testator. the wishes of the testator nbout the disposition of his estate among his heirs and among the legatees is given solemn expression at the time the will is executed, and in reality, the legacy or bequest then becomes a completed act. This rulini; has been laid down by this Court in the case of In re will of Riosa, 39 Phil. 23. It is a wholesome doctrine and shoulci be followed, Of course, there is the view that the intention of ~he testator should be the ruling and controlling factor and that all adcqi.iate remedies and interpretations should be resorteoi to in order to rarry out said intention, and that when r.tatutes passed after the execution of the 'Yill and after the death of the testator Jessen the formalities required by Jaw for the ex~cution of wills, said sub;;eql;cnt <>tcltutes should be applied so as to validate wills defectively execute1l according to the law in force at the time of execution. However, .we should not forget that from the tlay of the death of the testator, if he leaves a will, the title of the legatees and devisees under 1t becomes a vested rig-ht, protected under the due procc;ss clause of the constitution against a subsequent change in the statute adding new legal ·requirm.;,cnts of execution of wills which woulrl invalidate such a will. By parity of reasoning, when one execute.'! a will which is invalid for failur':! to observe and follow the leJ!al requirements at the time of its execution then upon his death he should be regarded and declared as having died intestate, and his heirs will then inherit by intestate succession, and no subse<pent law with more liberal requirements or which dispenses with such requirements as to execution should be allowed to validate a defective will and thereby diveat the heirs of their vested r-ights in the e!:tate by intestnte succession. The general rule is that the Legislature can not validate said wills (57 Am. Jur., Wills, Sec. 231, pp. 192-193). In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from h; revc1·sed, and Exhibit "A" is denied probate. With costs. Paras, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Alex Reyes, Jugo Bautista. Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and J, B. L. Reyes, J.J., concur, "VIII Antonio Uy, PetitioneT·Appellant, vs. Jose Rodrigue::, Mayor of the City of Cebn, RCspondent-Appellee. G. R. No. L-6772, July 30, 1954, LabmdoT, J. ADMINIST.RATIVE LAW; PUBLIC OFFICERS; CIVIL SETIVICE I.AW; REMOVAL OF DETECTIVES. - The ousted detective states that he is not a civil service eligible but that it does not appear from the record that his appointment as member of the detective force was temporary in character 0r for periods of three month$l merely, and that he had been reappointed every three months until his separation now in ques-· tion. The Mayo1· of Cebu claims that s::i.id detective's position Is primarily confidential and, therefore, Executive Order No. 264, series of 1940, of the President of the Philippines is applicable to the petitioner; that detectives in the City of Cebu pertain to the "detective service," which is distinct from tht> city police force and, thcrefirc, the provisions of Republic Act No. 557, which require investigation prior to dismissal of a member of the city police force, are not, applicable. Held: The above-ment.ioned circumstances, in addition to the fact that said detective was promoted as senior detective inspector, show thnt his appointment is not in n temporary capacity. He may not, therefore, be dismissed or removed except in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 557. (Palamine \.-S. Zapada, April 1954 Gaz., p. 1566; Mission vs. Del Rosario, April 1954 Gaz., p. 1571; Abella vs. Rodriguez, L-6867, June 29, 1954.) Fernando S. Rid.: and Emilia A. Math~ for thE' petitioner and appellant. Jose L. Abad and Quirico del MaT for the respondent and appellee. DECISION LABRADOR, J.: This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissing the petition for mandamus instituted in that court by Antonio Uy against Jose Rodriguez, mayor of the City of Cebu. Petitioner Antonio Uy was appointed deputy inspector of the detective force, police department, of the City of Cebu on J uly 1, 1946. On July 1, 1947, he was promoted to the position of senior detective inspector. He held this position from that date until September 5, 1952, when the respondent city mayor dispensed with his services on the grOund that he can no longer repose his trust and confidence in him. Upon receiving this notice of dismissal, petitioner requested the mayor to reinstate him, but the latter refuSed to do so. Hence, this action of mandamus. The court a quo held that the position held by the petitioner is primarily confidential and, therefore, Executive Order No. 264, seriei:: of 1940, of the President of the Philippines is applicable to thfl. petitioner; that detectives in the City of Cebu pertain to the "detective service," ,•;hich is distinct from th~ city police force and, therefore, the provisions of R~public Act No. 557, which require investigation prior to the dismissal of a member of the city police force, are not applicable. The question raised in this special civil action has already been decided squarely by us in the cases of Palonnine, et al vs. Zapada, et al, G. R. No. L-6901, promulgated March 15, 1954; Mission, et al vs. Del Rosario, G. R. No. L-6754, promulgnted February 26, 1954 i and Abella vs. Rodriguez, G. R. No. L-6867, promulgated June 29, 1954. In said cases, we have held that a mPmber of the detective force of Cebu City is a member of the police department of said city and may not be removed except in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 557. The statement· submitted by the petitioner shows that he is not a civil service eligible, but neither does it appear from the record that his appointment as member of the detective force was temporary in character or for periods of three months merely, and that he had been reappointed every three months until his separation. These circumstances, in addition to the fact that he was promoted as senior detective inspector, show that his appointment is not in a temporary capacity. He may not, therefore, be dismissed or re· moved except in accordance '".ith the provisions of existing law. The judgment appealed from is hereby re\!crsed, and the respondent city mayor is ordered to reinstate the petitioner to his former position of senior detective inspector in the detective force of the City of Cebu, with right to arrears in sa.lary from the time of his separation to the date of his reinstatement. Without costs. In the m.atter of the lut will •nd IHl•mtnl of J oH Vello, dtetHed. Teodoro V•llo, P etitioner and Apptll•nt, "'' P .. V•llo, \ ' d•. De Gnee•. ti aJ., Oppo•ltor• and Appelleu, G. R. No. L-'303, June st, UH. (L. J .. p. 4'8, Sept. 30, 1954.l In the above-mentioned cue, Pedro ~. LutPO'I na.me ahould have •Pll"'ll~ u 11, .. yer for the P<"tiUonen •nd 11.PP<"ll•ntl> ln.t..ad o( bl1 b~r Roaue R. Lu1PO and hl• former partner. Vl«nle L. •'aelnar, who bandll'd the e .. In the !lnffr cOlTI. and lost !~. On a 1•11eal to tke Supreme Cou!"t. AtlJ', P ed.-o Re. Lu.l)O t<lok over sod won the.,...,, 524 THE LAWYERS JOURNAL October 31, 1954

Media