G.R. No. L-23752 December 31, 1965
Saturnino Ll. Villegas, petitioner, vs. Victoriano de la Cruz, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Saturnino Ll. Villegas was appointed ad interim Justice of the Peace of Guihulñgan, Negros Oriental, by President Carlos P. Garcia on December 13, 1961. He took his oath on December 29, 1961, and his appointment was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on April 27, 1962. He immediately began discharging his duties. However, when the new administration under President Macapagal took over in 1962, the Department of Justice advised him that his appointment was among those recalled by Administrative Order No. 2. Petitioner sought reconsideration, arguing his case was not covered by the order, but the Secretary of Justice denied his request. On February 21, 1962, Pacifico S. Bulado was appointed in his place via Administrative Order No. 9. Bulado assumed office and served until September 15, 1964, when respondent Victoriano de la Cruz took over. On May 27, 1962, petitioner wrote to Bulado requesting turnover of the office in light of the Commission on Appointments’ confirmation, but Bulado disregarded the request. Petitioner filed the present petition for quo warranto on November 4, 1964.

ISSUE

Whether the petition for quo warranto is barred by the statute of limitations for having been filed more than one year after the cause of action arose.

RULING

Yes, the petition is barred. The Supreme Court, citing a long line of authorities, held that an action for quo warranto involving the right to a public office must be instituted within one year from the date the cause of action accrues. This period, originally fixed in the Code of Civil Procedure, reflects state policy that persons claiming a right to an office from which they were illegally removed must act promptly; failure to do so within one year constitutes abandonment of that right. The rationale is to inform the government promptly to avoid the predicament of paying two salaries and to ensure public office titles are not left in prolonged uncertainty for the public interest.
The Court found that petitioner’s cause of action arose on February 21, 1962, when he vacated his office upon being advised of the recall and when Bulado was appointed in his place. The fact that petitioner wrote to Bulado on May 27, 1962, demanding turnover confirms that Bulado was already in possession of the office at that time. Since the petition was filed on November 4, 1964, more than one year had elapsed. Petitioner’s claim that he never ceased discharging duties because he informed the Department of Justice he was not quitting was unsustainable given the record showing he ceased to act on February 21, 1962. Therefore, the petition was denied.