Maza v. Ochave
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Mercedes de la Maza was appointed as a clerk in the Municipal Treasurer's office of Alaminos, Pangasinan, in July 1959, with her appointment later made permanent. An altercation occurred between the petitioner and her co-employees in January 1960. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a letter of resignation dated January 29, 1960, though the date appears to have been altered. Following this, the Municipal Council abolished the petitioner's position, citing her resignation as creating a vacancy. Procedural History: In response to the abolition of her position, the petitioner filed an administrative case against Mayor Marcelo Ochave on April 7, 1960, alleging maladministration, oppression, and political persecution. This administrative case was investigated but not terminated. On May 27, 1961, the petitioner filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan seeking payment of her salaries, which she had not received from February 1, 1960, onwards. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling that it was filed more than one year after her exclusion from office, citing the Unabia vs. Mayor case. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, leading the petitioner to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, which upheld the dismissal of her petition for salary payment. The core issue is the legality of her removal from her civil service position. The petitioner argues that her action was timely filed. However, the Supreme Court must determine if her petition was filed within the one-year period prescribed for actions concerning civil service positions, considering her resignation, the abolition of her post, and the cessation of her salary payments as potential dates of removal.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition to compel payment of salaries was filed within the prescriptive period. Whether the abolition of the petitioner's position was valid.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, dismissing the petition. The Court held that the action was filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period for claims of reinstatement or salary payment after removal from a civil service position.
Ratio Decidendi
On the prescriptive period for filing an action for reinstatement or salary payment: The Court reiterated the established principle that any person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must file their petition for reinstatement within one year from the date of removal, otherwise, they are considered to have abandoned their office. This period aligns with the rule for instituting quo warranto actions. The petitioner filed her petition on May 27, 1961, which was more than one year after the abolition of her position on March 7, 1960, the latest date considered as her removal. The Court noted that even if the removal was considered from the date of her resignation or the date she ceased to be paid her salary, the action was still filed beyond the one-year period. On the validity of the abolition of the position: The Court affirmed that the Municipal Council possesses the power to abolish a position, as the power to create an office inherently includes the power to abolish it, unless prohibited by law. An exception exists when the abolition is conducted in bad faith, specifically to dismiss an incumbent in violation of civil service rules. However, the Court found no evidence of bad faith in this case. The abolition occurred after the petitioner submitted her resignation, and there was no indication that another position was created for another appointee. Furthermore, the abolition was prompted by a communication from the Department of Finance regarding an overdraft in the municipality's budget for salaries and wages, suggesting a fiscal necessity rather than an intent to remove the petitioner.
Main Doctrine
An action for reinstatement or to compel payment of salaries, stemming from removal from a civil service position, must be filed within one year from the date of removal, otherwise, the employee is deemed to have abandoned the office. The power to abolish an office is inherent in the power to create it, unless otherwise provided by law, and such abolition is valid even if it results in the removal of an incumbent, provided it is not done in bad faith.