MERCEDES DE LA MAZA, PETITIONER, VS. MARCELO OCHAVE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MAYOR OF ALAMINOS, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

De la Maza versus Ochave

The Case

This is a petition to review a decision of the Court of Appeals, arising from a petition filed by Mercedes de la Maza against Marcelo Ochave, in his capacity as Mayor of Alaminos, Pangasinan, to compel payment of her salaries. Although the action appears to be one for salaries, the Court tells us at the outset that the determinative question is the legality or illegality of her removal from her position in the office of the Municipal Treasurer of Alaminos. The case matters because it fixes the one-year period within which a person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must file a petition for reinstatement, failing which she is considered to have abandoned the office.

Procedural History

On April 7, 1960, the petitioner filed an administrative case against the respondent mayor on the grounds of maladministration, oppression and political persecution. That case was investigated, but there is no showing that it has been terminated. On May 27, 1961, the petitioner filed with the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan a petition to compel payment of her salaries. The trial court dismissed the petition, holding that since the petitioner had allowed more than one year to pass before filing her action, it can no longer be entertained under the authority of the Unabia versus Mayor case. The petitioner then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court's ruling. Whereupon, the petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court for review.

Facts

In July 1959, the petitioner, Mercedes de la Maza, was extended a probationary appointment as clerk in the Municipal Treasurer's office of Alaminos, Pangasinan, with salary at 1,080 pesos per annum. Upon receipt of her appointment, she immediately reported for work, and the appointment was made permanent by the Commissioner of Civil Service, effective on July 1, 1959.

On January 5, 1960, an incident of name-calling, or an altercation, took place between the petitioner and her co-employees during office hours, in the municipal building of Alaminos, and within public view, the details of which are debated. While the petitioner's co-employees said she was at fault, she claimed innocence upon being required to give her version. In a letter of resignation with a date made to appear as January 29, 1960, the petitioner tendered her resignation as clerk, effective January 29, 1960, at the close of office hours, and the mayor approved it. The date January 29, 1960, however, appears to have been merely superimposed over another typewritten date that had been erased.

Subsequently, or on March 7, 1960, the Municipal Council abolished the petitioner's position, in the view that her resignation resulted in a vacancy. The petitioner had not been paid her salary from February 1 to 15, and from March 5, 1960 and thereafter; she was on leave without pay in the interval from February 16 to March 3, 1960.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioner's action to compel payment of salaries, filed more than one year after her removal from office, is barred by her failure to file a petition for reinstatement within one year.
• Whether or not the Municipal Council validly abolished the petitioner's position, there being no showing of bad faith.
• Whether or not the abolition of the petitioner's position never took effect for lack of approval by the Secretary of Finance.

Applicable Provisions

Section 16 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court, on the period for quo warranto, provides:

The plaintiff in a quo warranto proceeding must commence the action within one year after the cause of action arises.

The Court cites this rule as the basis for the one-year period, since the requirement that a person claiming a right to a position in the civil service file his petition for reinstatement within one year is in line with the rule fixing the period of one year within which actions for quo warranto may be instituted.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the action was filed too late. It has been repeatedly held that any person claiming right to a position in the civil service should also be required to file his petition for reinstatement within the period of one year, otherwise, he is thereby considered as having abandoned his office. The petitioner filed her petition as late as May 27, 1961, more than a year after the abolition of her position on March 7, 1960, which date is, at the latest, the effectivity date of her removal. The Court added that whether her removal be considered as effected as of her resignation, or as of the date she was no longer paid her salaries, or as of the abolition of her position, the conclusion is inevitable that her action was not filed within one year from said removal.

On the second issue, the Court held that there is no doubt that the Municipal Council has the power to abolish the position in dispute, for the principle is settled that the power to create an office includes the power to abolish it, unless there are constitutional or statutory rules expressly or impliedly providing otherwise. A recognized exception is when the abolition of an office is done in bad faith, as when the purpose is to discharge the incumbent in violation of the civil service. The Court found it difficult to see how bad faith could have been the basis of, or an element in, the abolition: firstly, it was effected after the petitioner had filed her letter of resignation; secondly, there is no showing that another position was created and that another individual has been appointed to occupy that position; and besides, the abolition came about upon an indorsement from the Treasurer's office of a letter from the Chief Supervising Treasurer advising the Municipal Council of an overdraft or excess in the amount of 854 pesos and 30 centavos over the maximum amount expendible for salaries and wages.

On the third issue, the Court held that whether or not the abolition became effective is beside the point, since it seems clear from the facts that as early as February 1, 1960, the petitioner had no longer been recognized as an employee of the municipal government, because she had not been paid her salary since then, not by reason of abolition of her position but perhaps by virtue of her resignation dated January 29, 1960. Quoting its pronouncement in Morales versus Patriarca, the Court said:

Consequently, whether petitioner was legally or illegally removed, the fact is that he was removed just the same.

Doctrine

A person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must file a petition for reinstatement within one year; otherwise, she is considered to have abandoned the office. This one-year period is in line with the rule fixing the period of one year within which actions for quo warranto may be instituted. The power to create an office includes the power to abolish it, unless there are constitutional or statutory rules expressly or impliedly providing otherwise; the recognized exception is abolition done in bad faith, as when the purpose is to discharge the incumbent in violation of the civil service. Removal is effected, for purposes of the one-year period, by non-recognition of the official capacity and non-payment of salaries, whether or not the removal was legal.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the decision under review, without special pronouncement as to costs; the respondent mayor prevailed.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must file her petition for reinstatement within one year, or she is deemed to have abandoned the office. Examiners use this case to test the one-year period for reinstatement and quo warranto, and the rule that the power to create an office includes the power to abolish it, except when abolition is done in bad faith.