GR L 3304; (April, 1951) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-3304, April 5, 1951.
ANTONIO C. TORRES, petitioner-appellant, vs. EDUARDO QUINTOS, respondent-appellee.
FACTS
The petitioner-appellant, Antonio C. Torres, held the position of Chief of Police of Manila from March 3, 1936. Upon the arrival of American liberation forces, Col. Marcus E. Jones, U.S.A., assumed the office on orders of General Douglas MacArthur at the request of President Osmeña. Petitioner served as assistant to Col. Jones until March 15, 1945, when he left at his own request. On March 18, 1945, petitioner was taken into custody by the C.I.C. and later indicted for treason in the People’s Court, which acquitted him on January 16, 1948. During the pendency of the treason case, several individuals were appointed as Chief of Police, culminating with the respondent-appellee, Eduardo Quintos, who qualified for the position on January 12, 1948. After his acquittal, petitioner wrote to the Mayor of Manila on February 6, 1948, and later to the President of the Philippines on July 7, 1948, asserting his right to reinstatement, which was denied. On January 26, 1949, petitioner filed a petition for quo warranto in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed without prejudice on January 28, 1949. The present petition was filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila on February 1, 1949. The lower court dismissed the petition for being filed beyond the one-year period prescribed in section 16, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for quo warranto was filed within the one-year reglementary period prescribed by section 16, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the petition. The Court held that the petitioner’s cause of action, if any, arose in May 1945 when he was replaced and arrested, or at the latest on January 12, 1948, when respondent qualified, or on January 16, 1948, when petitioner was acquitted. The petition filed on January 26, 1949, in the Supreme Court was beyond the one-year period. The Court ruled that the pendency of administrative requests for reinstatement (to the Mayor and the President) does not suspend the one-year period for filing a quo warranto petition. The period is a condition precedent to the cause of action. Public interest requires that disputes over public office be settled speedily. The Court cited Abeto vs. Rodas, which held that the one-year period is mandatory, and that administrative remedies are neither a prerequisite to nor do they bar quo warranto proceedings, nor do they suspend the reglementary period.