PROCOPIO R. MORALES, JR. PETITIONER, VS. TORIANO PATRIARCA AND THE HON. JUAN R. LIWAG, RESPONDENTS.

On November
6, 1961,
Procopio Morales, Jr. was extended an ad
interim appointment as Justice of the Peace of an Andres, Quezon. On December 27,
1961, the
appointment was released. Procopio Morales, Jr. took
his oath, and assumed office, on December 28,
1961.

Secretary of Justice Diokno, on January 27, 1962, telegrammed the Executive Judge
of Lucena City, stating: 44 Under Administrative Order
Two President Macapagal And Supreme Court Decision
Aytona Case, Morales Appointment Declared Without
Effect Stop Please Advise Him Vacate Office Immediately”.

Procopio Morales, Jr., on
February 26,
,1962, wrote the Secretary of Justice
for reconsideration of said “advice”. On April 3,
1962, the
Secretary of Justice denied the request for reconsideration of the order to
vacate.

On April
27, 1962,
the Commission on Appointments confirmed Procopio
Morales, Jr.’s appointment.

On October
19, 1962,
Toriano Patriarca was
extended an ad interim appointment as Justice of the Peace of San Andres,
Quezon. The new appointee took his oath, and assumed
office, on October 26,
1962.

On May 13,
1963,
Procopio Morales, Jr. filed in this Court the instant
petition for “Quo Warranto, Prohibition, Injunction,
Etc.,” against Toriano Patriarca and the Secretary of Justice.

Petitioner contends, first, that
his appointment is not among the so-called midnight appointments1 withdrawn and
declared without effect by Administrative Order No. 2, and in the light of this
Court’s ruling in Aytona vs. Castillo, L-19313,
January 19, 1962; secondly, that his present suit is filed on time.

From the decisions of this Court
in the wake of the Aytona ruling, it is clear
that petitioner’s appointment was not a midnight appointment. The same was
extended on November 6,
1961,
even before election day, indicating deliberate and
careful action (Merrera vs. Liwag, L-20079 September 30, 1963). Petitioner took his oath
on December 28,
1961,
before the ”scramble” in Malacañang that started in
the evening of December 29,
1961
(Gillera vs. Fernandez, L-20741, January 31,
1964). No haste and irregularity, therefore, attended petitioner’s appointment,
and he took his oath days before the promulgation, on December 31,
1961, of
Administrative Order No. 2 (Soreno vs. Secretary of
Justice, L-20272, December 27, 1963).

Petitioner, however, cannot be
reinstated, since the present action for reinstatement is filed more than one
year from his removal. As a public official in the service, he should have begun
his court action for reinstatement, be it by quo warranto or mandamus, within one year from his removal or
separation, otherwise his action is barred (Sec. 16, Rule 66, Rules of Court;
Unabia vs. Mayor, 99 Phil, 253; 53 Off. Gaz., 132;
Velasquez vs. Gil, 99 Phil., 457; 53 Off. Gaz., 5615; Jose vs. Lacson, L-10177, May 17,
1957; Cuyo
vs. City Mayor of Baguio, 101 Phil.
558; Abella vs. Rodriguez, 54 Off. Gaz., 2879; Erauda vs. Cramen 54
Off. Gaz., 6253; Alipio vs. Rodriguez L-17336, December 26,
1963).

Petitioner’s removal was, at the
latest, on April 3,
1962,
when the Secretary of Justice denied his motion for reconsideration of the order
to vacate. Since the one-year period runs even during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration in the
administrative level (Torres vs. Quintos, 88
Phil. 436), said removal should even be deemed prior to April 3,
1962. The
present suit was filed, as stated, on May 13,
1963,
that is, at least 1 year, 1 month and 10 days from petitioner’s removal.

It is petitioner’s contention,
however, that the one-year period should be counted from October 26,
1962, the
date his successor assumed office. We cannot accept such a view. The rationale
of the one-year period is that title to public office should not be subjected to
uncertainties but should be determined as speedily as possible (Tumalak vs. Egay, 82 Phil.,
828; 46 Off, Gaz., 3693). Consequently’ the period
runs even when there is no person as yet pointed to succeed in the position
(Bautista vs. Fajardo, 38 Phil. 624; Agcaoili vs. Suguitan, 48
Phil. 076; Lim. vs. Yulo, 62 Phil. 161).

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby
dismissed, with costs against petitioner.

SO
ORDERED.

Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.