G.R. No. L-2451; February 24, 1949
JOSE M. TUMULAK, petitioner, vs. PROTOLICO EGAY, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Jose M. Tumulak was the duly appointed justice of the peace for Gigaquit and Bacuag, Surigao, from 1932 until August 1942, when the Japanese occupation interrupted his service. After liberation, he received an ad interim appointment from President Sergio Osmeña in January 1946, qualified in May 1946, and assumed office. In July 1946, after a trip to Cebu, he found respondent Protolico Egay occupying the position. Tumulak took no immediate legal action. In February 1948, after learning of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tavora vs. Gavina (which upheld the rights of pre-war judges), he sought reinstatement from the Department of Justice. Failing that, he filed this quo warranto proceeding in August 1948 to reclaim the office.

ISSUE

Whether the quo warranto action is barred for being filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period.

RULING

Yes, the petition is barred. Under Section 16, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court (and previously under Section 216 of Act No. 190 ), an action to oust a public officer must be commenced within one year after the cause of ouster arises. Tumulak’s cause of action accrued in July 1946 when Egay allegedly usurped the office. The petition filed in August 1948 was over one year later and thus out of time. The Court rejected arguments that the prescriptive period is inapplicable to constitutionally protected tenure, noting that even constitutional rights may be subject to statutes of limitations and can be waived by inaction. The one-year period aims to prevent uncertainty in public office and ensure speedy resolution. The petition is dismissed.

AI Generated by Armztrong.