GR L 22336; (May, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22336 May 23, 1967
MERCEDES DE LA MAZA, petitioner, vs. MARCELO OCHAVE, in his capacity as Mayor of Alaminos, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Mercedes de la Maza received a probationary appointment as a clerk in the Municipal Treasurer’s office of Alaminos, Pangasinan in July 1959, which was later made permanent effective July 1, 1959. On January 5, 1960, an altercation occurred between her and her co-employees. She submitted a letter of resignation addressed to the Mayor, dated January 29, 1960, which was approved. The date on the letter appeared to have been superimposed over an erased typewritten date. Subsequently, on March 7, 1960, the Municipal Council abolished her position, viewing her resignation as having created a vacancy. The abolition was prompted by an indorsement advising the municipality of an overdraft in its salary budget. Petitioner filed an administrative case against the Mayor on April 7, 1960. On May 27, 1961, she filed a petition with the Court of First Instance to compel payment of her unpaid salaries from February 1 to 15, and from March 5, 1960 onward. The trial court dismissed the petition, ruling she had allowed more than one year to pass before filing her action. The Court of Appeals upheld this ruling.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner’s action to compel payment of salaries, which hinges on the legality of her removal from office, was filed within the prescribed one-year period.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The determinative question was the legality of her removal. The Court held that any person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must file a petition for reinstatement within one year; otherwise, they are deemed to have abandoned the office. Petitioner filed her petition on May 27, 1961. Her removal was effected, at the latest, by the abolition of her position on March 7, 1960, which was more than a year prior. The Court found the abolition was done in good faith, as it occurred after her resignation and was due to a budgetary overdraft, with no showing it was made to discharge her unlawfully or that another person was appointed to her position. Whether her removal is reckoned from her resignation, the date she stopped receiving salary, or the abolition of her position, her action was filed beyond the one-year period.