Gonzales v. Rodriguez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Cesar Gonzales was appointed as a patrolman for the City of Cebu on September 30, 1950, holding a civil service eligibility. His appointment was noted as temporary, pending a physical and mental examination report from the GSIS, which was never submitted. On October 16, 1953, his services were terminated on the grounds that his position had been abolished and was not included in the city budget. 2. Procedural History: After his dismissal, Gonzales requested reinstatement on May 19, 1955. The City Board had previously approved Resolution No. 129 on February 12, 1954, recreating 92 abolished positions in the police force, which was later reduced to 70 by Resolution No. 285 on March 30, 1954, due to insufficient funds. The Acting City Mayor had promised to reinstate Gonzales but failed to do so. Gonzales filed a petition for mandamus on September 12, 1955, seeking his reinstatement. 3. The Petition: The petitioner-appellant, Cesar Gonzales, filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking to compel the Mayor, Municipal Board, and Auditor of Cebu City to reinstate him as a patrolman. The lower court dismissed the petition. The appeal to the Supreme Court argues that the dismissal was improper. However, the Supreme Court noted that the petition was filed almost two years after his dismissal and more than a year after the recreation of abolished positions, citing the precedent in Severino Unabia vs. City Mayor of Cebu which mandates filing such actions within one year of illegal removal to avoid being considered as having abandoned the position.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition for mandamus for reinstatement was filed within the prescriptive period. Whether the appellant's appointment was merely temporary.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus was dismissed. The Court held that the action for reinstatement was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period from the date of dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the petition for mandamus for reinstatement was filed within the prescriptive period: The Court reiterated the ruling in Severino Unabia vs. City Mayor of Cebu, G.R. No. L-8750, promulgated on May 25, 1956, which established that for reasons of public policy, any person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must file their action for reinstatement within one year from their illegal removal from office. Failure to do so is considered an abandonment of the claim. In the present case, the petition for mandamus was filed on September 12, 1955, which is almost two years after the appellant's dismissal on October 16, 1953. This period also exceeds one year and five months from the date of approval of Resolution No. 285 on March 30, 1954, which recreated 70 of the abolished positions. Therefore, the petition was filed out of time, and the lower court did not err in dismissing it. The Court found it unnecessary to determine the nature of the appellant's appointment as temporary, given the procedural bar. On whether the appellant's appointment was merely temporary: The Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve this issue. The primary reason for the dismissal of the petition was the failure to file the action for reinstatement within the one-year prescriptive period established in Severino Unabia vs. City Mayor of Cebu. Regardless of whether the appointment was temporary or permanent, the procedural requirement of filing the action within one year from dismissal was not met. Thus, the substantive question of the appointment's nature became moot.
Main Doctrine
A civil service employee claiming a right to reinstatement must file the action within one year from illegal removal, otherwise, the right is deemed abandoned.