GR L 12976; (March, 1961) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-12976. March 24, 1961. CESAR GONZALES, petitioner-appellant, vs. JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Cesar Gonzales, a civil service eligible, was appointed as a patrolman of Cebu City on September 30, 1950. His appointment contained a notation authorizing it as “temporary” pending a report from the GSIS regarding his physical and mental examination, but this report was never submitted. On October 16, 1953, his services were terminated by the Acting Mayor on the ground that his position had been abolished and was not included in the city budget. Subsequently, the City Board approved resolutions in 1954 recreating abolished positions in the police force, and the Acting Mayor promised to reinstate Gonzales but never fulfilled this promise.
Gonzales submitted a written request for reinstatement to the mayor on May 19, 1955, which was more than one year and seven months after his dismissal. He then filed a petition for mandamus with the Court of First Instance of Cebu on September 12, 1955, seeking to compel the city officials to reinstate him. The lower court dismissed his petition, prompting this appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for mandamus to compel reinstatement was filed within the prescriptive period.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the petition was filed out of time. The Court applied the doctrine established in Severino Unabia vs. City Mayor of Cebu (G.R. No. L-8750, May 25, 1956), which held that for reasons of public policy, any person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must file an action for reinstatement within one year from the date of illegal removal; otherwise, the claimant is deemed to have abandoned the office.
In this case, Gonzales was dismissed on October 16, 1953. He filed his mandamus petition on September 12, 1955, nearly two years later. Even if the reckoning point were the date of the resolution recreating positions (March 30, 1954), the filing was still over one year and five months thereafter. Consequently, his claim was barred by laches. Given this dispositive finding on prescription, the Court deemed it unnecessary to resolve the ancillary issue of whether his appointment was merely temporary due to the pending GSIS report. The decision of the lower court was upheld without costs.