Cerna v. Osmeña
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Andres de la Cerna, a civil service eligible appointed as a detective in the City of Cebu police department on July 1, 1946, was administratively charged with grave misconduct, serious irregularity in the performance of duty, and violation of law and duty in Administrative Case No. 22 before the Municipal Board of the City of Cebu. He was suspended on June 7, 1953. 2. Procedural History: Following his suspension, de la Cerna wrote to the City Mayor on June 7, 1953, asserting his right to reinstatement under Republic Act No. 557. On October 10, 1953, he received a letter from the Acting Mayor informing him that his position had been abolished in the 1953-1954 General Fund Budget and his services were terminated. De la Cerna initiated these proceedings on May 5, 1956, by filing a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Cebu. The trial court dismissed his petition on September 11, 1956, citing the case of Severino Unabia vs. the City Mayor of Cebu, et al., and denied his motion for reconsideration on January 28, 1957. 3. The Petition: Petitioner-appellant de la Cerna seeks reinstatement to his position in the city police force and payment of back salaries, arguing that Administrative Case No. 22 was still pending. The respondents contended that he was found guilty and dismissed in that administrative case. The Supreme Court, applying the doctrine that claims for reinstatement must be filed within one year, found no error in the lower court's dismissal orders and affirmed them.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for mandamus for reinstatement and back salaries is barred by the one-year prescriptive period established in jurisprudence.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the trial court dismissing the petition for mandamus.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the petition for mandamus was filed beyond the allowable period and was therefore barred. Applying the doctrine established in the case of Severino Unabia v. the City Mayor of Cebu (99 Phil. 258), the Court emphasized that any person claiming a right to a position in the civil service is required to file a petition for reinstatement within one year. Failure to comply with this one-year period leads to the legal conclusion that the claimant has abandoned his office. In this instance, the petitioner was separated from service due to the abolition of his position on October 10, 1953, yet he only filed his petition on May 5, 1956, which constitutes a delay of nearly three years. The Court reasoned that the limitation of one year is necessary to protect the government from being forced to pay back salaries for long periods during which no services were rendered. Consequently, regardless of the merits of the underlying administrative case or the abolition of the position, the action was filed too late to be entertained by the courts. The orders of the trial court dismissing the case based on this established precedent were thus correct and were affirmed in their entirety.
Main Doctrine
A petition for reinstatement to a civil service position must be filed within one year from the date of separation from the service, otherwise, the petitioner is deemed to have abandoned the office.