Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 238 views

    Quintos v. Lacson

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling granting an injunction preventing the dismissal of Jose Quintos from his position as a Manila city detective. The Court held that city detectives are part of the police force, and their dismissal is governed by the Civil Service law, which requires dismissal to be for cause and after due process. While the appellants urged the Court to review its previous rulings on this issue, the Court saw no reason to change its interpretation that was consistent with the applicable laws, and noted that any unwise laws should be addressed through the legislature, not the courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Quintos v. Lacson

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    238 views1 page
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling granting an injunction preventing the dismissal of Jose Quintos from his position as a Manila city detective. The Court held that city detectives are part of the police force, and their dismissal is governed by the Civil Service law, which requires dismissal to be for cause and after due process. While the appellants urged the Court to review its previous rulings on this issue, the Court saw no reason to change its interpretation that was consistent with the applicable laws, and noted that any unwise laws should be addressed through the legislature, not the courts.

    Original Description:

    CD

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling granting an injunction preventing the dismissal of Jose Quintos from his position as a Manila city detective. The Court held that city detectives are part of the police force, and their dismissal is governed by the Civil Service law, which requires dismissal to be for cause and after due process. While the appellants urged the Court to review its previous rulings on this issue, the Court saw no reason to change its interpretation that was consistent with the applicable laws, and noted that any unwise laws should be addressed through the legislature, not the courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    238 views1 page

    Quintos v. Lacson

    Uploaded by

    Zepht Badilla
    The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's ruling granting an injunction preventing the dismissal of Jose Quintos from his position as a Manila city detective. The Court held that city detectives are part of the police force, and their dismissal is governed by the Civil Service law, which requires dismissal to be for cause and after due process. While the appellants urged the Court to review its previous rulings on this issue, the Court saw no reason to change its interpretation that was consistent with the applicable laws, and noted that any unwise laws should be addressed through the legislature, not the courts.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TITLE:Quintos v.

    Lacson
    G.R. NO. L-8062 DATE: July 18, 1955
    PONENTE: NATURE:
    FACTS:
    ● Plaintiff appellee Jose Quintos was appointed patrolman in the Manila Police Department in December, 1945, and
    on December 16, 1947, he was promoted to the position of detective in the same police department. He duly
    qualified and assumed office successively for the two posts.
    ● On July 3, 1952, Arsenio H. Lacson as Mayor of the City of Manila dismissed supposedly for lack or loss of
    confidence, dismissed five detectives among them Jose Quintos.
    ● To annul this order of dismissal and to prevent its execution he filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of
    Manila for injunction against Mayor Lacson and Chief of Police Dionisio S. Ojeda.
    ● Pending trial the lower court issued a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants not to carry out the
    order of dismissal. After hearing, the trial court rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff Quintos granting injunction.

    ISSUE/S:
    W/N summary dismissal of a Manila city detective under the provisions of Executive Order No. 264, in view of Republic
    Act No. 557 is valid
    DOCTRINES | HELD:

    RULING:
    SC affirmed ruling
    We have heretofore ruled upon this very point, holding that City detectives are members of the police force and that the
    manner of their dismissal is governed by the provisions of Republic Act No. 557.
    Counsel for appellants, conscious of the previous ruling of this court on the subject suggests, even urges us to review such
    ruling. We see no reason or occasion for making any change of revision. We are convinced that our interpretation and
    application of the laws involved is correct. If said laws are deemed unwise and detrimental to the discipline and
    efficiency of detectives in Manila and other chartered cities, proper representations and requests may be made to
    the Legislature. As long as laws do not violate any Constitutional provision, the Courts merely interpret and apply them
    regardless of whether or not they are wise or salutary.
    |||
    NOTES:
    COURTS; DUTY TO INTERPRET AND APPLY LAWS. — As long as laws do not violate any Constitutional
    provision, it is the duty of the courts to interpret and apply them regardless of whether or not they are wise and salutary.
    If the law is deemed unwise and detrimental to the discipline and efficiency of public officers, proper representations and
    requests may be made to the legislature.
    |||

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy