G.R. No. L-17915 January 31, 1967
TEODORO M. CASTRO, petitioner and appellant, vs. AMADO DEL ROSARIO as Commissioner of Civil Service, DOMINADOR AYTONA as Secretary of Finance, MELECIO R. DOMINGO, as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and TOMAS C. TOLEDO, respondents and appellants.

FACTS

This is a quo warranto proceeding originally filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila concerning the position of Assistant Regional Revenue Director II, Manila, which became vacant on August 24, 1959. Respondent Tomas C. Toledo was appointed to the position on November 24, 1959, effective October 1, 1959. Petitioner Teodoro M. Castro protested the appointment, claiming he was the one entitled to it under Section 23 of Republic Act No. 2260 (Civil Service Act of 1959) as the officer next in rank, competent, qualified, and possessing civil service eligibility. At the time of the vacancy, Toledo was the Chief Revenue Inspector (or Examiner) in Manila, while Castro was an Assistant Revenue Regional Director I in Regional District No. 5, San Pablo City. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Commissioner of Civil Service dismissed Castro’s protest, reasoning that the contested position was for Regional District No. 3 (Manila), where Toledo was the next ranking employee and was already performing the functions. The trial court annulled Toledo’s appointment but did not grant Castro’s prayer to be appointed. Both parties appealed.

ISSUE

The principal issue is whether Teodoro M. Castro has a clear right to the position of Assistant Regional Revenue Director II, Manila, such that he is entitled to oust Tomas C. Toledo in a quo warranto proceeding.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled against Castro. A private person filing a quo warranto action must prove he is entitled to the controverted position. Castro failed to establish a clear right to the office. He claimed entitlement under Section 23 of RA 2260 as the officer next in rank. However, the evidence showed that for the Manila vacancy, the next two in line were Teodoro Lucero and Lauro Abraham, other Assistant Revenue Regional Directors from different districts, who were senior to Castro in rank based on salary. Castro was not the most senior among the nine Assistant Revenue Regional Directors outside Manila. His claim that the eight other directors waived their rights by not complaining was rejected; silence does not constitute a clear and unmistakable intent to waive a known right. Furthermore, the supposed illegality of Toledo’s prior appointment as Chief Revenue Examiner was not a proper ground to annul his subsequent appointment to the contested position. The action was also barred by laches or prescription, as a quo warranto proceeding must be filed within one year after the plaintiff’s right to hold the office arose, which Castro failed to do. Therefore, Castro did not have a superior right to the position, and Toledo had a right to its undisturbed possession.