CESAR GONZALES, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. JOSE V. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu
dismissing the petition for mandamus filed by appellant Cesar Gonzales
against the Mayor, the Municipal Board, the Treasurer and the Auditor
of Cebu City to compel them to reinstate him as patrolman.

There is no question that on September 30, 1950, appellant—a civil
service eligible—was appointed, and since then had acted as patrolman
of the City of Cebu with an annual compensation of P1,200.00. His
appointment contained a note to the effect that it was authorized by
the Deputy Commissioner of Civil Service as “temporary” pending report
from the GSIS regarding his physical and mental examination. Said
report, however, was never submitted to the corresponding authorities.

On October 16, 1953, appellant was notified by the then Acting Mayor of
the City of Cebu, Vicente S. del Rosario, of the termination of his
services as patrolman on the ground that his position had been
abolished and was not included in the city budget. On May 19, 1955,
that is, more than one year and seven months after his dismissal
appellant submitted a written request to the mayor for his
reinstatement. The same was denied. Thereafter appellant resorted to
other administrative remedies to secure his reinstatement, and
according to the stipulation of facts, on February 12, 1954 the City
Board approved Resolution No. 129 recreating 92 abolished positions in
the police force of the City of Cebu, which number was subsequently
reduced to 70 by Resolution No. 285 of March 30 of the same year due to
the nonavailability of sufficient funds. The parties further agreed
that thereafter, the respondent Rodriguez, in his capacity as Acting
City Mayor, promised to reinstate appellant but never actually did so,
This notwithstanding, appellant filed the present action for mandamus
only on September 12, 1955.

In Severino Unabia vs.
City Mayor of Cebu, 99 Phil., 253; 53 Off. Gaz., 132, this Court held
that for reasons of public policy, any person claiming right to a
position in the civil service should file action for reinstatement
within one year from his illegal removal from office, otherwise he is
considered as having abandoned the same. In the present case, the
petition for mandamus was filed only on September 12, 1955, that is,
almost two years from October 16, 1953 when appellant was dismissed
from the service, and more than one year and five months from the date
of approval of Resolution No. 285 (March 30, 1954) recreating 70 of the
abolished positions of uniformed men in the police department of the
city. We are, therefore, of the opinion, and so hold, that the lower
court did not err in dismissing the petition.

In view of
what has been said heretofore, we deem it unnecessary to determine
whether appellant’s appointment as patrolman was merely temporary in
view of the notation made thereon that it was subject to a report to be
rendered by GSIS regarding his physical and mental examination. Without
costs.

Bengzon, Acting C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Barrera, and Paredes, JJ., concur.