G.R. No. L-40295 July 31, 1978
ABRAHAM C. SISON, petitioner, vs. HON. EPI REY PANGRAMUYEN, Commissioner of Civil Service; GERONIMO LIPUMANO, Mayor, Olongapo City; ALFREDO D. OCAMPO, Officer-in-Charge, Civil Service, Regional Office No. 3, San Fernando, Pampanga; and EUREKA F. MALIWANAG, Assistant City Assessor, Olongapo City, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Abraham C. Sison, then Chief Deputy Assessor of Olongapo City, filed a petition for certiorari and quo warranto challenging the appointment of private respondent Eureka F. Maliwanag as Assistant City Assessor on November 23, 1973. Sison protested that, as the next-in-rank official exercising supervision over Maliwanag, and possessing superior educational qualifications and civil service eligibility, he should have been appointed to the vacant position upon the promotion of the former Assistant City Assessor. The City Mayor, upon the recommendation of the City Assessor, appointed Maliwanag instead. The Commissioner of Civil Service initially revoked the appointment but, upon reconsideration, ultimately affirmed it in a resolution dated June 24, 1974, dismissing Sison’s protest. Sison filed the present judicial petition on March 13, 1975, seeking to annul the Commissioner’s actions, declare Maliwanag’s appointment void, and secure his own appointment to the position.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Civil Service Commissioner committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the appointment of Maliwanag over the protest of Sison. A secondary, and ultimately decisive, issue is whether Sison’s petition was filed within the prescriptive period.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On the substantive issue, the Court found no grave abuse of discretion by the Civil Service Commissioner. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner, as the official primarily charged with administering civil service laws, possesses the expertise to evaluate appointments. His decision to sustain the City Assessor’s recommendation—which cited substantial reasons for appointing Maliwanag—was entitled to respect. The Court declined to substitute its judgment, noting that Sison’s reliance on an unapproved organization chart he himself prepared was insufficient to overturn the administrative finding. More critically, the Court ruled that the petition was filed out of time. The appointment was made on November 23, 1973, and the judicial petition was filed on March 13, 1975, clearly beyond the one-year prescriptive period. The Court rejected Sison’s argument that the one-year rule under Section 16, Rule 66 on quo warranto was inapplicable because his petition also included certiorari and mandamus. The Court held that the core relief sought—the ouster of Maliwanag and Sison’s installation—was essentially a quo warranto action. Even if treated as mandamus, the one-year prescriptive period similarly applies. The pendency of Sison’s administrative protest did not toll the running of the period for filing the judicial action. Consequently, Sison was barred from seeking judicial relief.