JOSE S. ANDAYA and EDGARDO L. INCIONG v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

JOSE S. ANDAYA and EDGARDO L. INCIONG, Petitioners, v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Cebu City, Branch 20, and THE CITY OF CEBU, Respondents.
G. R. No. 126661. December 3, 1999

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. Regional Director Jose Andaya submitted to Mayor Alvin Gracias a list of five (5) eligibles for the mayor to 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 certain P/Chief Inspector Andres Sarmiento was not included therein. However, Andaya refused to agree to Mayor Garcias request to include the name of PCI Sarmiento in the list of police officers for appointment by the mayor. His refusal was based on his contention that Sarmiento was not qualified for the position of chief of police because he failed to suffice the minimum qualification standards for Directors of Provincial/City Police Commands which includes completion of the Officers Senior Executive Course (OSEC) and the rank of Police Superintendent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Mayor has the power to appoint a chief of police not included in the recommendees of the Regional Police Director.

HELD:
It is the prerogative of the Regional Police Director to name the five (5) eligibles from a pool of eligible officers screened by the Senior Officers Promotion and Selection Board 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 - 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.

As deputy of the Commission, the authority of the mayor is limited only in the selection among the list of five eligible officers recommended by the Regional Director. The power to appoint the chief of police is vested in the Regional Director, much less may the mayor require the 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.

Location: Cebu City, Cebu, Philippines

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

G.R. No. L-62952 October 9, 1985 NEPOMUCENO vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS: Martin Jugo died on July 16, 1974 in Malabon, Rizal. He left a last Will and Testament duly signed by him. In the said Will, the testator named and appointed herein petitioner as his sole and only executor of his estate. It is clearly stated in the Will that the testator was legally married to a certain Rufina Gomez by whom he had two legitimate children, but since 1952, he had been estranged from his lawfully wedded wife and had been living with petitioner as husband and wife. The testator devised to his forced heirs, namely, his legal wife Rufina Gomez and his children Oscar and Carmelita his entire estate and the free portion thereof to herein petitioner.   ISSUE: Whether the respondent court acted in excess of its jurisdiction when after declaring the last Will and Testament of the deceased validly drawn, it went on to pass upon the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provision in favor of herein petitioner.   HELD: The petitioner submits th...
Read more

VALENCIDES VERCIDE vs. JUDGE PRISCILLA T. HERNANDEZ

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1265               April 6, 2000 VALENCIDES VERCIDE vs. JUDGE PRISCILLA T. HERNANDEZ, Fifth Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Clarin and Tudela, Misamis Occidental FACTS: Valencides Vercide and his wife filed for recovery of possession of a parcel of land against Daria Lagas Galleros. The land is located in Upper Centro, Tudela, Misamis Occidental. Defendant Galleros is a resident of the same municipality, while complainant and his wife are residents of Dipolog City. Because of this fact, the case was filed in court without prior referral to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. ISSUE: Whether or not Lupong Tagapamayapa has jurisdiction over the case. HELD: According to several cases decided by the Honorable Supreme Court, it was ruled that where parties do not reside in the same city or municipality or in adjoining barangays, there is no requirement for them to submit their dispute involving real property to the Lupong Tagapamayapa. The Lupon sha...
Read more