G.R. No. 26114 , September 7, 1926
CATALINO ORTIZ AIROSO, petitioner, vs. LORENZO DE GUZMAN, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Catalino Ortiz Airoso was appointed Justice of the Peace of Bongabon, Nueva Ecija in 1914. On May 3, 1923, he ceased performing his duties after being repeatedly requested to resign by Judge Hermogenes Reyes, on the ground that he had reached the age of 65. The order for his ouster was based on Act No. 3107 , which set 65 years as the compulsory retirement age for justices of the peace. Airoso surrendered his office to the justice of the peace of Laur, fearing a contempt charge. He later sought reconsideration, which was denied. Airoso took no further action to reclaim his office until June 16, 1926, when he filed the present petition seeking a declaration of nullity of respondent Lorenzo de Guzman’s occupation of the office and his own reinstatement. De Guzman was appointed to the position on November 19, 1923, confirmed by the Senate on February 8, 1924, and assumed office on April 1, 1924, without protest from Airoso. It was also noted that Airoso presented himself as a candidate for municipal president in the 1925 elections.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioner, after having been ousted from his office and having taken no action to reclaim it for three years, is estopped from seeking reinstatement on the ground of abandonment.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court DENIED the petition. The Court held that even assuming Act No. 3107 (the retirement age law) did not apply retroactively to Airoso, his conduct constituted an abandonment of his office. Abandonment requires a clear intention to relinquish the office, which may be inferred from one’s actions. By allowing three years to pass without any attempt to reclaim the office and by presenting himself as a candidate for another elective position (municipal president) in 1925, Airoso clearly demonstrated his voluntary abandonment. Consequently, he is estopped from seeking reinstatement. The Court emphasized that the doctrine in *Agcaoili v. Suguitan* (48 Phil. 676) regarding the non-retroactivity of retirement laws was not modified by this decision.