GR L 21280; (April, 1965) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-21280 April 30, 1965
PROCOPIO R. MORALES, JR., petitioner, vs. TORIANO PATRIARCA and THE HON. JUAN R. LIWAG, respondents.
FACTS
On November 6, 1961, Procopio R. Morales, Jr. was extended an ad interim appointment as Justice of the Peace of San Andres, Quezon. The appointment was released on December 27, 1961, and he took his oath and assumed office on December 28, 1961. On January 27, 1962, the Secretary of Justice telegraphed an order, citing Administrative Order No. 2 of President Macapagal and the Supreme Court’s decision in the Aytona case, declaring Morales’s appointment without effect and directing him to vacate the office immediately. Morales sought reconsideration on February 26, 1962, which was denied by the Secretary of Justice on April 3, 1962. Subsequently, on April 27, 1962, the Commission on Appointments confirmed Morales’s appointment. However, on October 19, 1962, Toriano Patriarca was extended an ad interim appointment to the same position, and he took his oath and assumed office on October 26, 1962. On May 13, 1963, Morales filed a petition for “Quo Warranto, Prohibition, Injunction, Etc.” against Patriarca and the Secretary of Justice.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Procopio R. Morales, Jr.’s action for reinstatement is barred by the one-year prescriptive period for filing such suits, considering the timing of his removal and the filing of the petition.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that Morales’s appointment was not a “midnight appointment” as it was extended on November 6, 1961, before the election day, and he took his oath on December 28, 1961, before the “scramble” in Malacañang that started on December 29, 1961, and before the promulgation of Administrative Order No. 2 on December 31, 1961. Thus, no haste or irregularity attended his appointment. However, the Court ruled that Morales’s action for reinstatement was filed out of time. The one-year prescriptive period for filing a quo warranto or mandamus action for reinstatement runs from the date of removal, which was at the latest on April 3, 1962, when the Secretary of Justice denied his motion for reconsideration. The period runs even during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration. Since the petition was filed on May 13, 1963, more than one year after his removal, the action is barred. The Court rejected Morales’s contention that the period should be counted from October 26, 1962, when his successor assumed office, stating that the rationale for the one-year period is to determine title to public office speedily and avoid uncertainties, and the period runs even if no successor has been appointed yet.