Erauda v. Del Rosario
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Paulino Cramen and Alfredo Erauda were temporary employees in the Office of the City Veterinarian in Cebu City, without civil service qualifications. Cramen was appointed abattoir cleaner on March 31, 1953, and Erauda as cleaner on December 16, 1951. On July 22, 1953, they were summarily removed by the Acting City Mayor, Vicente S. del Rosario, through a communication stating their services were terminated due to their temporary appointments and in line with a policy of reorganization for efficiency. Cramen was replaced by Antonia Hermosilla, and Erauda by Felix Magallanes, who was later replaced by Marcelo Ibañez. Petitioners demanded reinstatement, which was denied by both Acting Mayor Del Rosario and his successor, Mayor Jose V. Rodriguez. Procedural History: On February 17, 1955, petitioners filed a complaint for Mandamus with Damages in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking reinstatement, back salaries, and damages against Mayor Del Rosario. The complaint was dismissed by the trial court. The Petition: Petitioners appealed the dismissal, arguing that their summary removal was unlawful and that the court erred in allowing payment of salaries to the intervenors pending trial.
Issue(s)
Whether the summary removal of the petitioners, who were temporary employees without civil service eligibility, was lawful. Whether the action for reinstatement was filed within the prescriptive period.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance, dismissing the petition. The Court held that the removal of the petitioners was lawful and that their action for reinstatement was filed beyond the prescriptive period, thus barring their claim.
Ratio Decidendi
On the lawfulness of the removal: The Court held that the petitioners were temporary employees without civil service eligibility. Their appointments were temporary in character, governed by Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code. This provision states that temporary appointments without examination shall not be made except when public interest requires and with prior authorization, and shall continue only for a period not exceeding three months or until an eligible is certified. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioners expired every three months, and they could be lawfully removed and replaced by other non-eligibles after the expiration of their appointment or after three months of service. The removal by respondent Mayor Del Rosario was thus lawful, and petitioners had no right to compel reinstatement. On the timeliness of the action: The Court found that the petitioners filed their complaint for reinstatement on February 17, 1955, which was 1 year, 6 months, and 25 days after their removal on July 22, 1953. This delay was considered abandonment of office. The Court reiterated its ruling that the government must be promptly informed of claims to civil service positions to avoid paying two salaries. Therefore, any person claiming a right to a civil service position must file their petition for reinstatement within one year from removal, otherwise, they are deemed to have abandoned their office. The Court further clarified that the one-year period is a condition precedent to the cause of action, and failure to file within this period means the complaint cannot prosper, even if the delay is not raised as a defense in the lower courts.
Main Doctrine
Temporary employees without civil service eligibility, whose appointments are temporary in character, may be lawfully removed and replaced by other non-eligibles after the expiration of their appointment or after three months of service, in accordance with Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code. Furthermore, a delay of one year, six months, and twenty-five days in filing an action for reinstatement is considered abandonment of office, barring the claim.