G.R. No. L-11482; November 29, 1960
ESTEBAN T. BUMANGLAG, petitioner-appellant, vs. JOSE FERNANDEZ, and HON. PEDRO TUASON, as Secretary of Justice, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

Petitioner-appellant Esteban T. Bumanglag was the duly appointed and confirmed Justice of the Peace of Talipao and Maimbung, Sulu. Administrative charges were filed against him for: (1) not residing within his jurisdiction; (2) appearing as private counsel for accused in a criminal case in the Court of First Instance on dates he claimed salary for service as justice of the peace; and (3) demanding and collecting P60.00 from a litigant. After investigation, he was found guilty of the second and third charges. By Administrative Order No. 53 dated April 23, 1948, the President removed him from office. Celestino V. Ramos was later nominated and confirmed for the position, and subsequently, respondent Jose Fernandez was appointed.
Bumanglag made several representations for reinvestigation, initially not to reverse the removal but to allow a less embarrassing exit from service. These were denied. Eventually, a reinvestigation was authorized. The investigator recommended upholding the dismissal order. However, the Secretary of Justice, considering Bumanglag had been sufficiently punished, recommended modifying the penalty. Consequently, on December 28, 1953, the President issued Administrative Order No. 260, which modified Administrative Order No. 53 by considering Bumanglag as having resigned effective the date of his separation, without prejudice to reinstatement.
Bumanglag then requested reinstatement to his former position, claiming Administrative Order No. 260 exonerated him. The Undersecretary of Justice opined he could only return if appointed anew, as the position was not vacant. On November 29, 1954, Bumanglag filed a petition for Quo Warranto. The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed the petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition for quo warranto was filed within the prescribed one-year period.
2. Whether there was a legal vacancy in the office when respondent Fernandez was appointed.
3. Whether petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and back salaries.

RULING

1. The petition was filed beyond the prescribed period. Under Section 16, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court, an action for ouster from office must be commenced within one year after the cause of ouster or the right to hold office arose. Bumanglag’s cause of action arose upon his ouster on April 23, 1948, or at the latest when he was replaced by Celestino V. Ramos on April 21, 1950. The one-year period expired on April 23, 1949, or April 21, 1951, respectively. The petition filed on November 29, 1954, was therefore barred. His subsequent requests for reinvestigation did not interrupt this prescriptive period.
2. A legal vacancy existed when respondent Fernandez was appointed. From the time of Bumanglag’s removal, he was not reinstated or reappointed. Administrative Order No. 260 merely modified the penalty from removal to being considered as having resigned; it did not exonerate him or constitute a reversal of the removal order. It explicitly stated reinstatement was without prejudice, meaning he could return only if appointed anew. Since the position was filled first by Ramos and then by Fernandez, a vacancy legally existed for the President to fill. The power to appoint justices of the peace is vested in the President, involves discretion, and once an appointee has qualified, the courts cannot oust them without legal cause, which is absent here.
3. Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement or back salaries. Administrative Order No. 260 did not exonerate Bumanglag; it only reduced the penalty. He was not reinstated. Therefore, he has no right to the office or to back salaries.
The decision of the lower court dismissing the petition for quo warranto is affirmed.