Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > December 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-23752 December 31, 1965 - SATURNINO LL. VILLEGAS v. VICTORIANO DE LA CRUZ:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-23752. December 31, 1965.]

SATURNINO LL. VILLEGAS, Petitioner, v. VICTORIANO DE LA CRUZ, Respondent.

Lorenzo G. Teves & Associates, Tolentino Law Office and San Juan, Africa & Benedicto for Petitioner.

Respondent in his own behalf.


SYLLABUS


1. QUO WARRANTO; TIME TO FILE ACTION. — In actions for quo warranto involving the right to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of one year from the time the cause of action arose. The reason for this rule is that it is not proper that the title to a public office be subjected to continued uncertainty for the people’s interest requires that such right be determined as speedily as possible.


D E C I S I O N


BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.:


This is a petition for quo warranto seeking the declaration of petitioner as the duly appointed Municipal Judge of Guihulñgan, Negros Oriental.

Petitioner was appointed ad interim Justice of the Peace of Guihulñgan, Negros Oriental, by President Carlos P. Garcia on December 13, 1961. He took his oath of office on December 29, 1961, and on April 27, 1962 his appointment was confirmed by the Commission on Appointment.

From the time he took his oath of office petitioner immediately entered into the discharge of his official functions, but when the new administration took over in 1962, petitioner was advised by the Department of Justice that his appointment as such justice of the peace was included among those recalled in Administrative Order No. 2 issued by President Macapagal.

Petitioner requested reconsideration contending that his appointment cannot be considered within the ambit of said administrative order, but his request was denied by the Secretary of Justice, and so on February 21, 1962 Pacifico S. Bulado was appointed in his place by virtue of Administrative Order No. 9. Bulado assumed office on the same date and performed the duties of the office up to September 15, 1964 when respondent took over as Justice of the Peace of Guihulñgan, Negros Oriental. However, on May 27, 1962, petitioner wrote to Acting Justice of the Peace Bulado requiring him to turn over to him the office he was holding in view of the confirmation of petitioner’s ad interim appointment by the Commission on Appointments, but the request was disregarded by Bulado. And on November 4, 1964, petitioner commenced the present petition for quo warranto.

There is merit in the claim of respondent that the instant action is already barred by the statute of limitations for the reason that more than one year had elapsed since its cause of action arose. Thus, it appears that when petitioner was informed by the Secretary of Justice that his appointment was one of those recalled by President Macapagal in his Administrative Order No. 2 he vacated the same on February 21, 1962, on which date Pacifico S. Bulado was appointed in his place. Since then he ceased to be in office, though he later claimed that his removal was illegal because it does not fall within the ambit of said administrative order. But the action taken by him was too late for since then more than one year had already elapsed. The following authorities uphold this view.

". . . in actions of quo warranto involving right to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of one year. This has been the law in the island since 1901, the period having been originally fixed in section 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190). We find this provision to be an expression of policy on the part of the State that persons claiming a right to an office of which they are illegally dispossessed should immediately take steps to recover said office and that if they do not do so within a period of one year, they shall be considered as having lost their right thereto by abandonment." (Unabia v. City Mayor, Et Al., 99 Phil., 253, 257; Pinullar v. President of the Senate, L-11667, June 30, 1958; Roque v. President of the Senate, L-10949, July 25, 1958; Madrid v. Auditor General, Et Al., L-13523, May 31, 1960; Mesias v. Jover, 97 L-8543, November 22, 1955, Abella v. Rodriguez, L-10512, November 29, 1957; Eranda v. Del Rosario, L-10552, April 28, 1958; Quingco v. Rodriguez, L-12144, September 17, 1958, Tabora v. City of Cebu, L-11574, October 31, 1958; De la Cerna v. Osmeña, 105 Phil. 774; Argos v. Velasco, 83 Phil. 929; Tumulak v. Egay, 82 Phil. 828; Bumanglag v. Fernandez, Et Al., 110 Phil. 107; Cui v. Cui, L- 18727, August 31, 1964).

The rationale of this doctrine is that —

". . . the Government must be immediately informed or advised if any person claims to be entitled to an office or a position in the civil service as against another actually holding it, so that the Government may not be faced with the predicament of having to pay two salaries, one, for the person actually holding the office, although illegally, and another, for one not actually rendering service although entitled to do so." (Unabia v. City Mayor, Et Al., supra; Pinullar v. President of the Senate, supra; Madrid v. Auditor General, Et Al., supra; Torres v. Quintos, L-3304, April 5, 1951).

The claim of petitioner that he never ceased to discharge the duties of Justice of the Peace of Guihulñgan, Negros Oriental because he informed the Department of Justice that he was not quitting his position because his opinion was that his case was not covered by Administrative Order No. 2 cannot be sustained in the light of what appears in the record of this case. In effect, when petitioner was advised by the Department of Justice that his appointment has been recalled he ceased to act on February 21, 1962, and on that same date Pacifico S. Bulado was appointed in his place. As a matter of fact, on May 27, 1962, petitioner wrote to Bulado requesting him to turn over to him the office he was holding in view of the confirmation of his ad interim appointment by the Commission on Appointments, but Bulado denied the request. This letter clearly reveals that Bulado was already then holding the office which he occupied up to September 15, 1964 when respondent took over as the last incumbent of the position. The reason for the rule in limiting the prescriptive period to one year is that it is not proper that the title to a public office be subjected to continued uncertainty for the people’s interest requires that such right be determined as speedily as possible (Tumulak v. Egay, 82 Phil. 828).

WHEREFORE, petition is denied. No costs.

Bengzon, C.J., Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P. and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






December-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-25349 December 3, 1965 - SALIH UTUTALUM v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-21767 December 17, 1965 - RAFAEL P. MASCARIÑAS v. MONEBRIO F. ABELLANA

  • G.R. No. L-23326 December 18, 1965 - PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSN., INC., v. PEDRO M. GIMENEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20711 December 24, 1967

    IN RE: SERAPION LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23800 December 21, 1965 - POLICARPO ALMEDA v. JULIAN FLORENTINO

  • G.R. No. L-24403 December 22, 1965 - DELFIN B. ALBANO, ET., AL. v. MANUEL ARRANZ, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20348 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: ANTONIO DY v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20425 December 24, 1965 - BLUE BAR COCONUT CO v. CITY OF ZAMBOANGA

  • G.R. No. L-20373 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: WONG KIM GOON v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20602 December 24, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANDRES REYES

  • G.R. No. L-20914 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: DINTOY TAN SUAREZ v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21019 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: ANTONIO PO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21218 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: LIM YUEN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21790 & 21794 December 24, 1965 - ANDRES E. LAZARO v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21859 December 24, 1965 - IN RE: RAMON GAN CHING LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23637 December 24, 1965 - MARCELINO G. COLLADO v. JUAN A. ALONZO

  • G.R. No. L-23778 December 24, 1968

    MANUEL M. AGUILA v. REMIGIO CASTRO, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23825 December 24, 1965 - EMMANUEL PELAEZ v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • G.R. No. L-23850 December 24, 1965 - GUILLERMO D. ABAÑO v. SOFRONIO D. AGUIPO

  • G.R. No. L-15783 December 29, 1965 - JOSE SAMALA v. SAULOG TRANSIT, INC., ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17280 December 29, 1965 - DIOSDADO STA. ROMANA v. CARLOS IMPERIO

  • G.R. No. L-18333 December 29, 1965 - JOSE C. AQUINO, ET., AL. v. PILAR CHAVES CONATO

  • G.R. No. L-20415 December 29, 1965 - IN RE: SIO KIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21026 December 29, 1965 - COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SERVICE v. ANGEL C. CRUZ

  • G.R. No. L-21131-33 December 29, 1965 - SIMEON O. CRUZ, ET AL., v. COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-21692 December 29, 1965 - ROMAN GONZALES, ET AL., v. J. M. TUASON & CO., INC., ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-22959 December 29, 1965 - PEDRO LUDOVICE v. MARCOS T. CAUGMA

  • G.R. No. L-23813 December 29, 1965 - BCI EMPLOYEES AND WORKERS UNION v. MOUNTAIN PROVINCE WORKERS UNION

  • G.R. No. L-24574 December 29, 1965 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. ANDRES REYES, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-17133 December 31, 1965 - U.S.T. COOPERATIVE STORE v. CITY OF MANILA

  • G.R. No. L-17411 December 31, 1965 - LUZON STEVEDORING CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

  • G.R. No. L-19571 December 31, 1965 - FRANCISCA PUZON v. MARCELINO GAERLAN, ET., AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20240 December 31, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE GRIJALDO

  • G.R. No. L-21262 December 31, 1965 - ALEJANDRO MANALOTO v. MIGUEL P. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21416 December 31, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO B. GARAY

  • G.R. No. L-21418 December 31, 1965 - ANTONIO QUA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22335 December 31, 1965 - AMANTE P. PURISIMA v. ANGELINO C. SALANGA

  • G.R. No. L-22754 December 31, 1965 - RUBEN A. VILLALUZ v. CALIXTO ZALDIVAR, ET AL.,

  • G.R. No. L-23240 December 31, 1965 - BENEDICTO LAMBONAO v. ALFREDO O. TERO

  • G.R. No. L-23752 December 31, 1965 - SATURNINO LL. VILLEGAS v. VICTORIANO DE LA CRUZ