Aller v. Osmeña
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Emilio B. Aller was appointed clerk in the office of the Provincial Auditor of Cebu on January 1, 1951. On August 31, 1952, his position was abolished by the Provincial Board, allegedly in bad faith and for political reasons, leading to his termination. Petitioner filed a complaint on September 27, 1955, seeking the recreation of his position and his reinstatement. Procedural History: Respondents denied the allegations of bad faith, asserting that the abolition was part of a retrenchment policy, approved by the Secretary of Finance. They also raised the defense that the action was not filed within one year and that petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not appealing to the Auditor-General and the President. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss based on the one-year prescriptive period. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to this appeal. The Petition: Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his action, arguing that his position was abolished in bad faith and for political reasons, and that he is entitled to reinstatement.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for recreation of position and reinstatement was filed within the prescriptive period. Whether the Province of Cebu is an indispensable party to the action. Whether the complaint states a cause of action, considering the approval of the abolition by the Secretary of Finance.
Ruling
The judgment appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the action was not filed within the prescriptive period. The Court has consistently held that actions for the recreation of a position and reinstatement to public service must be filed within one year from the date of the abolition of the position and the termination of services. In this particular case, the petitioner's position was abolished on August 31, 1952, but he filed his complaint only on September 27, 1955, which is almost three years later. This delay clearly exceeds the established one-year period, rendering the action time-barred. The Court, in line with prior jurisprudence, found that such a prolonged delay indicates laches or an acquiescence to the administrative act, thereby precluding judicial intervention. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court held that the motion for dismissal for failure to include the Province of Cebu as a party respondent is well founded. Citing Cabanes vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-9799, prom. May 31, 1957, the Court emphasized that in actions seeking the recreation of a provincial position and reinstatement, the province itself is an indispensable party. Without the Province of Cebu being properly impleaded, any judgment rendered concerning the abolition of a provincial position or the reinstatement of a provincial employee would not be binding upon or enforceable against the entity ultimately responsible for such matters. Therefore, the failure to join the province constitutes a fatal procedural defect, warranting the dismissal of the action. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, noting that the petition also failed to state a cause of action, particularly as the former position occupied by the petitioner-appellant had been abolished with the approval of the Secretary of Finance. This approval signifies that the administrative act of abolition was carried out with proper authorization and presumably in good faith, undermining the petitioner's claim that the abolition was made in bad faith or for political reasons. The existence of such administrative approval lends credence to the respondents' defense that the abolition was part of a legitimate policy of retrenchment. Furthermore, the absence of an appeal to the Auditor-General and the President of the Philippines, as alleged by the Provincial Auditor, implies a failure to exhaust administrative remedies, further weakening the petitioner's standing to seek judicial relief.
Main Doctrine
An action for reinstatement to an abolished position must be filed within a reasonable time, and failure to implead the province as a party defendant is a ground for dismissal.