G.R. No. L-46218 October 23, 1990
JOVENTINO MADRIGAL, petitioner-appellant, vs. PROV. GOV. ARISTEO M. LECAROZ, VICE-GOVERNOR CELSO ZOLETA, JR., PROVINCIAL BOARD MEMBERS DOMINGO RIEGO AND MARCIAL PRINCIPE; PROV. ENGR. ENRIQUE M. ISIDRO, ABRAHAM T. TADURAN AND THE PROVINCE OF MARINDUQUE, respondents-appellees.

FACTS

On November 25, 1971, the Provincial Board of Marinduque abolished petitioner Joventino Madrigal’s permanent position as a construction capataz via Resolution No. 204, citing poor provincial finances. Madrigal appealed to the Civil Service Commission, which declared his removal illegal in a resolution dated January 7, 1974. The Provincial Board subsequently denied his request for reinstatement on August 18, 1975, reasoning the position no longer existed, though it appropriated a sum for his back salaries covering December 1, 1971 to June 30, 1973. Madrigal then filed a petition for mandamus and damages with the Court of First Instance of Marinduque on December 15, 1975, seeking restoration of his position, reinstatement, and payment of back salaries and damages.
The trial court dismissed the petition on March 16, 1976, on the ground of laches. It ruled that an action for reinstatement by a public official, whether framed as quo warranto or mandamus, must be filed within one year from removal. The court noted that Madrigal filed his petition over four years after his position was abolished. His motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioner’s action for mandamus to compel reinstatement and claim back salaries is barred by laches for being filed beyond the one-year prescriptive period.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, holding the action was barred by laches. The Court reiterated the settled doctrine that any person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must file an action for reinstatement, whether denominated as mandamus or quo warranto, within one year from the date of illegal removal or separation. Failure to do so constitutes abandonment of the right to the office. The one-year period is a condition precedent to the existence of the cause of action and is not interrupted by the pursuit of administrative remedies. In this case, Madrigal was removed in November 1971 but only filed his judicial action in December 1975, clearly beyond the allowable period.
The Court further ruled that the claim for back salaries and damages is merely incidental to the principal action for reinstatement. Since the main action has prescribed, the incidental claim must likewise fail. The Court emphasized that the prescriptive period applies regardless of the pendency of administrative appeals, as the question involved—the legality of the abolition—was a pure question of law that administrative agencies could not resolve with finality. Thus, the appeal was denied, and the trial court’s orders were affirmed.