Petitioners-appellees were in the year 1951 members of the police  force  of the City of  Bacolod.  All  of  them are civil service eligibles.   In the year 1951 the  chief of police filed  administrative complaints against them, charging some with having tolerated prohibited games, another with  maltreatment,  another with failure to make arrest of  offenders, etc.  The administrative complaints were sworn to by the chief of police  and  were  presented by him  to  the city mayor,  who  thereupon  endorsed, them to the  city council  and suspended the petitioners.  The latter referred  the complaints to a committee on police, which authorized its chairman to  subpoena the petitioners, furnishing  each and everyone  of them with a  copy of the respective administrative charges filed  against each. The  respondents did not appear  at the hearing, so  the committee  received the evidence which the chief  of police offered.  Thereafter  the  committee made  the  following findings and resolution:

"The  complainant  Chief of  Police was  asked  to  present  his evidence  against the respondents  and upon hearing the evidence presented by  the complainant Chief  of Police, thru his witnesses, the committee is of the opinion  and so holds that  respondents Arturo  Cardenas, Monico Nobleza, Pacifico Limbaga, and  Conrado Matavia are  guilty  beyond  reasonable  doubt  of  the  charge  of "serious irregularities  in the performance  of  their  duties  and violation of  the law";  and  Respondents Ernesto  Quiatchon  and Crispin  Carmona are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of "Maltreatment and abuse of authority"; and Respondents Pacifico Limbaga and Conrado Matavia are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of additional charge of "dereliction of  duty" and  "sleeping while in duty" respectively, aside  from their  guilty already established in the first administrative complaint for "serious  irregularities in' the performance of their duties and violation of the  law" "In view hereof, the committee"

"Resolved, to recommend  to the Honorable City Mayor the immediate  separation  from the service of all the above-named respondents for the best interest  of public service."

"Resolved  further, that in order not  to  hamper the function of the police force it is recommended that  the position to be vacated by the  respondents herein be immediately  filed by him  also for the  best  interest  of  public  service."  (pp. 12-13,  Brief  of  Respondent-Appellant.)

The above resolution,  which ratified  all the  actuations of the city mayor with  regards to their suspension  and their separation from the service (of petitioners-appellees), was approved by the city council  on  October 29,  1951.

So the petitioners-appellees instituted these suits against the mayor, alleging that they had  been illegally removed and praying that they  be  reinstated to  their respective positions.   A trial was  held, after which the  court rendered  a decision ordering the  reinstatement of the petitioners-appellees, holding that their  suspension and removal are  not in accordance with the  provisions  of Republic Act No. 557.  The reasons  adduced by the trial court for its  conclusion  are:  (1)  that  the complaints were  not instituted by the city mayor himself; (2)  that  the investigation was conducted by a committee of the  council, and not by the council itself;  and (3) that the petitioners were  not given opportunity, to appear and give their evidence in support of  their defense.  Appeal against this decision was prosecuted in this Court, for the reason that there is  no dispute as  to the facts necessary for the determination of the case.

The law provides that the  charges against city policemen shall  be preferred by the  city mayor.  It  can  not be implied  therefrom that the  mayor himself must  file the charges personally,  or that he sign the complaint himself like a prosecuting officer filing an information.  There is no  provision that he  must sign the charges.  To prefer is to  present,  and this is what the mayor did when he submitted the  charges  before the  council.   Besides,  the chief  of police is the   immediate  representative of  the mayor, and acts for the latter  under  the latter's direct orders.   When the chief of police, therefore, filed the  administrative complaints and the mayor submitted them to the city  council,  the  latter may  be considered  as having made the complaints his own.   The signing of the complaints by  the mayor is a mere formality  which is  not essential to the  validity of  the proceedings, causing no substantial injury to the rights of the respondents.  There is, therefore, no  justification  for annulling the investigation under  this score.

The second  reason for invalidating  the investigation is the fact that the charges were investigated  by a committee of the city council, not by the council itself.  While it is true that we had held in Santos vs.  Mendoza, 48 Off. Gaz.,  No.  11,  p. 4801, that  such  a procedure  is  valid the law has been changed since the above decision.   Republic Act No. 557 has eliminated the  provision  authorizing  investigation by,a committee of  the council.   We held that the  change meant that the investigation should be by the council itself (Festejo vs. Municipal Mayor of Nabua, 96 Phil.,  286,  promulgated December 22, 1954). We affirmed this  doctrine in  the recent  case of  Covacha vs. Amante, G. R. No. L-8358, promulgated May 25, 1956. The trial  court  was, therefore, correct in holding that the investigation proceedings were  not conducted by the municipal  council  and  in annulling  the results of  the investigation.

The above  conclusion  as to the nullity of the  investigation renders unnecessary the  consideration of the third finding of  the trial court.

The judgment is, therefore,  affirmed.  Without  costs.

Paras, C, J., Bengzon, Padilla,  Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.