Thursday, March 4, 2021

DIGEST/ CHARLES ADRIANNE GILAGA. RULE 66/JOSE C. CRISTOBAL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. ALEJANDRO MELCHOR AND FEDERICO ARCALA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

 RULE 66/JOSE C. CRISTOBAL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. ALEJANDRO MELCHOR AND FEDERICO ARCALA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

 G.R. L-43203, July 29, 1977 

Facts:

Jose C. Cristobal was formerly employed as a private secretary in the President's Private Office, Malacañan, Manila, the Executive Secretary Amelito R. Mutuc, by means of a letter informed the Cristobal that his services as private secretary in the President's Private Office were 'terminated effective today'.  A similar letter was addressed by Secretary Mutuc to some other employees in the Office of the President. 

 

The dismissed employees appealed to the President by means of letters for a reconsideration of their separation from the service.  In a letter their request for reconsideration was denied by Secretary Mutuc, acting 'by authority of the President'.

 

Five of the employees who were separated (not including the herein plaintiff) filed a civil action before the Court of First Instance of Manila against Secretary Mutuc and the cash-disbursing officer of the Office of the President praying for reinstatement and the payment of their salaries entitled 'Raul R. Ingles, et als. vs. Amelito R. Mutuc, et als.' Civil Case No. 49965.  From a judgment dismissing their complaint, the said employees appealed to the Supreme Court which rendered a decision promulgated on November 29, 1968 reversing the dismissal of their complaint and declaring their removal from office as illegal and contrary to law, and ordering their reinstatement and the payment of their salaries from January 1, 1962 up to the date of their actual reinstatement (G.R. No. L-20390).

Sometime in May, 1962, when the civil action filed by Raul R. Ingles, et als. was still pending in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the dismissed employees who filed said action were recalled to their positions in the Office of the President, without prejudice to the continuation of their civil action. With respect to the other employees who were not reinstated, efforts were exerted by Secretary Mutuc to look for placements outside of Malacañan so that they may be reemployed.  The herein plaintiff was one of those who had not been fortunate enough to be reappointed to any position as befits his qualifications.

After the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-20390 was promulgated  the plaintiff addressed a letter to the Office of the President dated January 19, 1969, requesting reinstatement to his former position and the payment of salary, supposedly in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforementioned case.  This request was denied repeatedly by the Office of the President.

Cristobal filed with the Court of First Instance of Manila. The defendants represented by the Office of the Solicitor General alleged that plaintiff Jose Cristobal had no cause of action as he is deemed to have abandoned his office for failure to institute the proper proceedings to assert his right within one year from the date of separation pursuant to Sec. 16, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, he having come to court only after the lapse of more than nine years, thereby in effect acquiescing to his separation, and therefore he is not entitled to any salary from termination of his employment.

Trial court rendered its decision dismissing the complaint.

 

Issue:

Whether or not appellant Cristobal lost his right to seek judicial relief for not having filed his complaint within the one-year period provided for in Section 16, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court?

 

Held:

We agree with defendants-appellees that in this jurisdiction the consistent doctrine followed by this Court is that in actions of quo warranto involving right to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of one year from the time the cause of action arose. The doctrine of laches which is invoked to defeat Jose Cristobal's suit, for not only did Cristobal fail to file his complaint within one year from the date of separation but, it is claimed, he allowed almost nine years to pass before coming to court by reason of which he is deemed to have acquiesced to his removal.

However, there are certain exceptional circumstances attending which take this case out of the rule and lead Us to grant relief to appellant.

Thus --

1. There was no acquiescence to or inaction on the part of Jose Cristobal amounting to abandonment of his right to reinstatement in office.

Cristobal was not one of the plaintiffs in the civil case, it is true, but his non-participation is not fatal to his cause of action.  During the pendency of the civil case Cristobal continued to press his request for reinstatement together with the other employees who had filed the complaint and was in fact promised reinstatement as will be shown more in detail later.


No comments:

Post a Comment