This  is a petition  for  mandamus originally filed on June  20, 1953 by Nicasio Faunillan against  Vicente  del Rosario as the then  mayor of Cebu City  for reinstatement  as  detective of the Police Department of the city from  which  respondent  allegedly dismissed  him not pursuant to law, and for moral damages and costs.   Respondent del  Rosario was subsequently ousted from office by the former incumbent mayor Jose V. Rodriguez, by virtue of our  decision in the case  of  Rodriguez vs. Del Rosario 49 Off.  Gaz., 5427, wherein we declared the removal of Jose  V. Rodriguez and the appointment of  Vicente  del Rosario  as City  Mayor of Cebu illegal.   Upon his return to office, Mayor Rodriguez reinstated petitioner Faunillan to his former position,  for which  reason petitioner, with leave of court, amended his petition, impleading, together with the  ousted Mayor Vicente del  Rosario,  City Mayor Jose V. Rodriguez,  City Treasurer Felipe B.  Pareja, and City Auditor  Restituto Cantos, and praying that  he  be awarded,  in  addition  to  moral damages, costs,  and attorneys fees, his  back  salaries  from the  time  of  his dismissal  up  to  the date  of his reinstatement.

After joinder  of issues,  the parties  entered into  the following stipulation of facts: 

1. That  petitioner and  respondents  are  all of  legal age  and residents of  the City  of  Cebu;. and  that respondent  Vicente  del Rosario had been replaced  by Jose V. Rodriguez, while respondent Martin Kintanar had been succeeded by Restituto  Cantos as City Mayor and City Auditor,  respectively,  of the  City  of  Cebu;
   
2.  
3. That petitioner, for a period of more  than four  years, that is, from July 1, 1949  up to and  including  May 19, 1953,  was a detective in the police department of the City of Cebu as evidenced by Exhibit "A", appointment  signed by  former City  Mayor Miguel Raffinan, dated  July 1, 1949;   
   
4.  
5. That on  May  19, 1953, the service of petitioner Nicasio Faunillan as such  detective was terminated  by respondent  Vicente  del Rosario effective at the  close  of  office  hours of  said  date  as evidenced by  Exhibit "B", which is the notice of termination, dated May 19, 1953,  signed by said former mayor;  and  that since then up to  December 17, 1953, petitioner had not  received his  salary as such  detective;
          
6. That the herein petitioner  had collected  the full  amount covering his terminal leave commutation;
          
7. That on  December  17,  1953, petitioner was  re-appointed to the detective force of  the  police department of the City of Cebu as detective and is still serving up to the present;
          
8. That he has  not  been paid his  salary corresponding  to the period from  May  20, 1953 to December 17, 1953;    
9.  
10. That  after the dismissal  of  the  herein  petitioner, Florencio Quijano  was appointed in his place  and  for  sometime actually occupied the  post;
           
11. That the herein petitioner up to the time of his dismissal from the service had not yet qualified in a  patrolman examination given by the Commissioner of Civil  Service, but had passed the patrolman examination given on  September 20, 1952 in the City of Cetra with a rating of SO per cent, as per advice received sometime in January,  1954;
           
12. That former City Mayor Vicente  del Rosario was ousted by the Supreme Court in a decision rendered in the case Rodriguez vs. DEL rosabio, G. R. No.  L-6715, 49 Off.  Gaz. 5427, declaring the designation of respondent Vicente  del Rosario as city mayor of Cebu illegal;
           
13. That on February 26,  1954, the  Supreme Court decided the case of Mission, et al., vs. Del Rosario, et al., G. R. No. L-6754, involving the case of the forty-three detectives who were dismissed for lack of trust  or  confidence;
           
14. That the respondents have no  objection to the  admission of Exhibit "A" and  Exhibit "B";
         
15. That both petitioner and respondents hereby agree to abandon all claims for moral, compensatory  and exemplary damages,  and for attorney's fees, it being understood that  the claim for  back salaries by the  petitioner it excluded from  the  waiver." (Orig. Record pp. 29-31.)

The court below found petitioner's summary  dismissal from service arbitrary and in violation of Republic Act No. 557, and ordered the City Treasurer of Cebu to pay petitioner's accrued salaries corresponding to  the period from May 19, 1953, the date of his dismissal, to December 16, 1953, the date  of his reinstatement.   From the judgment, the respondent appealed  to this court.

Following our decision in the case of Mission, et al. vs. Del Rosario,^[1] 50 Off. Gaz., No. 4, 1571, involving other detectives of the police department of  the City of Cebu also summarily  dismissed by the then mayor Vicente del Rosario  in 1953, and subsequent cases involving the same issue (Olegario vs. Lacson, 97 Phil., 75; Quintos vs. Lacson,^[2] 51  Off. Gaz., No. 7,  3429; Meneses vs.  Lacson, 97 Phil., 857; Vy vs. Rodriguez, 50 Off. Gaz., No. 8, 3574), to  the effect that detectives belonging to the police force  are members thereof and cannot be summarily dismissed from office without complying  with the  provisions of Republic Act No.  557,  unless their appointments are  temporary, we must agree with the court below that appellee Nicasio Faunillan's summary dismissal from service by former Vicente del Rosario was arbitrary and in violation of law.

But there is merit  in appellants'  contention that under section 5 of the Charter of the City  of Cebu  (Commonwealth Act No. 58, as amended), the City is exempt from liability  for damages  suffered  by any person  from  the failure of  any city  official to comply with the law.  Said section provides:

 "Sec. 5. City  not liable for  damages. The City shall not be liable or  held  for damages or injuries to persons  or property arising from the failure  of the  mayor,  the  municipal board, or any  other  city officer, to enforce the provisions of this charter, or any other law or ordinance,  or from negligence of said mayor, municipal board,  or  other offices while  enforcing  or  attempting to enforce said provisions."

As appellee's claim for back salaries  during the period that he had stayed out of  office constitutes compensatory or actual damages suffered  by him because of his unlawful dismissal by former Cebu Mayor Vicente del Rosario the  city  can  not,  under  the  above  liability-exempting provision of its charter, be held liable therefor.  Appellee's remedy is  to sue the guilty official in the lattery personal capacity.

Wherefore, with  prejudice to  appellee's  right to  file another action against respondent Vicente del Rosario in the latter's personal capacity, the judgment appealed from is reversed insofar as it  orders the City  Treasurer  of Cebu to pay appellee's accrued  salaries  from  May  19, 1953 to  December  16,  1953.  Without  costs in this  instance.  So ordered.

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

---

^[1]194 Phil., 483.
^[2]197 Phil., 290.