G.R. No. L-11667; June 30, 1958
ELPIDIO PINULLAR, petitioner-appellant, vs. THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, in his capacity as Administrative Head of the Senate, respondent-appellee.

FACTS

Elpidio Pinullar was employed as a temporary laborer in the Philippine Senate in June 1945. He received a permanent promotional appointment on October 8, 1947, and held the position continuously with salary increases, reaching an annual salary of P1,680 by 1952. On June 24, 1952, the President of the Senate informed Pinullar of his temporary relief effective July 1, 1952, citing the introduction of a “rotation system” to provide employment to those in financial difficulty, with an understanding of reappointment after a period. Accordingly, Pinullar was laid off but was later given a temporary appointment and worked from November 1 to December 31, 1952. He objected to the rotation system in a letter dated November 6, 1952, and sought reinstatement as a permanent laborer, followed by another joint letter dated January 3, 1953. His petition was not favorably acted upon, and he accepted another temporary employment from October 1 to November 30, 1953. Having received no further appointment, Pinullar filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Manila on January 9, 1956, seeking reinstatement with backpay, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs. The respondent argued that Pinullar held office at the pleasure of the Senate, that any security of tenure was lost due to acquiescence, estoppel, or laches, and that the court lacked jurisdiction as a co-equal branch of government. The lower court dismissed the petition, citing lack of jurisdiction and that the action was barred due to abandonment. Pinullar appealed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court had jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether the action was already barred.
3. Whether Pinullar’s service under the rotation system constituted acquiescence.
4. Whether the dismissal of the case was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition. The Court did not find it necessary to rule on the jurisdictional issue because the petition was barred on other grounds. The Court held that Pinullar, by accepting temporary appointments on two occasions after his permanent relief, changed the nature of his employment from permanent to temporary. As he lacked Civil Service eligibility, his term became terminable at the pleasure of the appointing power, following the doctrine in Cuadra vs. Cordova. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Pinullar’s failure to file the mandamus petition within a reasonable time constituted laches, acquiescence, or abandonment. Citing Unabia vs. The Honorable City Mayor, the Court declared one year to be a reasonable period for filing such an action. Since Pinullar filed his petition more than three years after his cause of action accrued (from July 1, 1952), he was barred from seeking relief. The petition was dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.