G.R. No. L-39451 February 20, 1989
ISIDRO M. JAVIER, petitioner-appellee, vs. PURIFICACION C. REYES, respondents-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Isidro M. Javier was appointed Chief of Police of Malolos, Bulacan, on November 7, 1967, by Mayor Victorino B. Aldaba, with the municipal council’s confirmation. He took his oath and assumed office the next day. On January 3, 1968, the newly assumed Mayor, respondent Purificacion C. Reyes, recalled Javier’s appointment from the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and subsequently ousted him, designating another officer-in-charge. The CSC initially returned the appointment papers but, upon reconsideration, approved Javier’s appointment as permanent on May 2, 1968. The CSC ruled that a prior appointment of another individual, Bayani Bernardo, was void for lack of municipal council consent as required by Republic Act No. 1551 . The CSC directed Mayor Reyes to install Javier, but she refused, prompting Javier to file a petition for mandamus to secure reinstatement and back salaries.
The respondent mayor defended her actions by citing a conflicting CSC indorsement that had initially approved Bernardo’s appointment, arguing it created doubt about the valid appointee and potential personal liability. Intervenor Bayani Bernardo moved to dismiss, claiming prescription and lack of a clear legal right, but was declared in default. The trial court ruled in favor of Javier, ordering his reinstatement with back wages. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court on pure questions of law.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioner has a clear legal right to the office of Chief of Police, warranting the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel his reinstatement, considering the conflicting actions of the Civil Service Commission and the claim of laches or prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, ordering the reinstatement of Javier with five years of back salaries. The legal logic centers on the validity of Javier’s appointment and the inapplicability of laches against him. Javier’s appointment was duly made, confirmed by the municipal council, and ultimately attested as permanent by the CSC on May 2, 1968. This approval vested in him a complete and enforceable right to the office. The Court found that the subsequent recall and ouster by Mayor Reyes were without legal basis. The conflicting CSC indorsement regarding Bernardo’s earlier appointment did not invalidate Javier’s rights, as Bernardo’s appointment was correctly deemed void ab initio for lack of the mandatory council consent required by the then-governing law, R.A. No. 1551 .
Crucially, the Court held that laches did not bar Javier’s claim. He promptly asserted his rights by assuming office, seeking CSC redress after his ouster, and filing a mandamus action. His actions constituted acceptance and diligent pursuit of his vested right. In contrast, Bernardo was guilty of laches for his inaction and failure to challenge Javier’s appointment timely. The respondent mayor’s refusal to comply with the CSC’s lawful directive to install Javier constituted a ministerial duty enforceable by mandamus. The Court thus found a clear legal right in favor of Javier and a corresponding duty on the part of the mayor, which was unjustly neglected.