G.R. No. L-10552; April 28, 1958
Alfredo Erauda and Paulino Cramen, petitioners-appellants, vs. Vicente S. del Rosario, as former City Mayor of Cebu, Jose V. Rodriguez, as incumbent City Mayor, Felipe B. Pareja, as City Treasurer, and Restituto Cantos, as City Auditor, respondents and appellees, Marcelo Ibañez and Antonio Hermosilla, intervenors-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioners-appellants Alfredo Erauda and Paulino Cramen were temporary employees without civil service eligibility in the Office of the City Veterinarian of Cebu City. Erauda was appointed cleaner on December 16, 1951, and Cramen was appointed abattoir cleaner on March 31, 1953. On July 22, 1953, respondent Acting Mayor Vicente S. del Rosario summarily removed them without investigation or hearing, citing a policy of reorganization and efficiency. They were replaced by intervenors Antonio Hermosilla and Felix Magallanes (later replaced by intervenor Marcelo Ibañez). After their removal, petitioners demanded reinstatement from Mayor Del Rosario and later from his successor, Mayor Jose V. Rodriguez, but were unsuccessful. On February 17, 1955, they filed a mandamus action with damages in the Court of First Instance of Cebu seeking reinstatement, back salaries, and damages, claiming their removal was unlawful. The trial court dismissed the complaint, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the summary removal of the petitioners was lawful.
2. Whether the action for reinstatement was filed within the prescribed period.

RULING

1. Yes, the removal was lawful. The petitioners were non-civil service eligibles holding temporary appointments. Under Section 682 of the Revised Administrative Code, temporary appointments without civil service examination are authorized only for periods not exceeding three months and cannot extend beyond thirty days from receipt of a certification of eligibles. As temporary employees, their appointments expired every three months, and they could lawfully be replaced at the discretion of the appointing authority after each period. Therefore, their removal by Acting Mayor Del Rosario on July 22, 1953, was in accordance with law, and they have no right to compel reinstatement. The Court cited the precedent in Orais et al. vs. Ribo.
2. No, the action was not filed on time. The petitioners were removed on July 22, 1953, but filed their complaint only on February 17, 1955, a delay of one year, six months, and twenty-five days. Applying the policy underlying the one-year period for filing quo warranto actions, the Court held that any person claiming a right to a civil service position must file a petition for reinstatement within one year from removal; otherwise, they are deemed to have abandoned the office. This one-year period is a condition precedent to the cause of action, not merely a waivable defense. Thus, even if the objection was raised for the first time on appeal, the Court could consider it, as the delay was fatal to the petitioners’ claim. The Court cited Unabia vs. City Mayor and Abeto vs. Rodas.
Given the above conclusions, the Court found it unnecessary to resolve the second assignment of error regarding the payment of salaries to the intervenors pending trial. The decision of the lower court was affirmed, with costs against the appellants.