ANICETO MADRID, PETITIONER, VS. THE AUDITOR GENERAL AND/OR THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Aniceto Madrid versus the Auditor General

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Aniceto Madrid against the Auditor General and the Republic of the Philippines, asking the Supreme Court to reverse the Auditor General's denial of his claim for back salary covering the period of his alleged illegal separation from the government service. The case matters because it fixes in our jurisprudence the one-year rule for protesting a separation from the civil service, and because it illustrates how a temporary or acting appointment may be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power.

Procedural History

Madrid filed his claim for back salary with the Auditor General, who denied it in a decision rendered on September 5, 1956, holding that by his long inaction he had abandoned his office or acquiesced in his removal. A copy of that decision was mailed to him on November 29, 1956. About a year later, on November 5, 1957, Madrid asked for reconsideration, but the Auditor General refused, holding that the decision had already become final. A second request for reconsideration was likewise denied. Madrid then filed the present petition for review before the Supreme Court.

Facts

At the outbreak of the last war, Aniceto Madrid was a permanent lighthouse keeper at Ungay Point, Rapu-Rapu, Albay, receiving compensation of 720 pesos per annum. After liberation, on August 10, 1945, he was reappointed to his pre-war position in an acting capacity.

On March 14, 1946, a criminal information for treason was filed against him in the People's Court, and upon the dissolution of that court the case was transferred to the Court of First Instance of Albay. On April 30, 1946, the Acting Collector of Customs sent Madrid a letter terminating his services as lighthouse keeper of the Bureau of Customs, quoting a communication from the Office of the Solicitor General to the effect that the record file of the CIC revealed derogatory information concerning him. In a second indorsement dated June 18, 1946, that Office stated that Madrid's separation on the strength of the report of the Solicitor General was not irregular.

On March 1, 1951, the Court of First Instance of Albay unconditionally dismissed the treason case against Madrid for failure of the prosecution to secure the necessary evidence. On June 20, 1951, Madrid requested reinstatement to his former position and payment of salary from May 1946, in view of the dismissal of the criminal charge. He had by then already been reinstated in the Lighthouse Service of the Philippine Navy. From April 30, 1946 to June 20, 1951, more than five years, he took no step to bring the matter to the proper authorities or to contest the legality of his removal.

Issues

• Whether or not Madrid's claim for back salary during the period of his separation from the service was properly denied on the ground that he abandoned his office or acquiesced in his removal by failing to contest it within one year.
• Whether or not Madrid's separation from the service may be considered illegal, given that his appointment prior to removal was merely in an acting capacity.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision; it rests on the doctrine laid down in prior decisions of the Court, including Pinullar versus President of the Senate, which states the rationale of the one-year rule:

The Government must be immediately informed or advised if any person claims to be entitled to an office or a position in the civil service as against another actually holding it, so that the Government may not be faced with the predicament of having to pay two salaries, one, for the person actually holding the office, although illegally, and another, for one not actually rendering service although entitled to do so.

This rationale explains why the claim must be asserted promptly, and it is the reason the Court barred Madrid's claim.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Madrid's claim was properly denied. A person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must institute the proper proceedings to assert that right within one year from the date of separation; otherwise he is considered as having abandoned his office, or even acquiesced or consented to his removal, and is therefore not entitled to bring an action for reinstatement. Madrid waited more than five years without taking any step to contest the legality of his removal or to have his rights restored, and so he is now barred from questioning the legality of his separation. By his failure to promptly institute the corresponding action for reinstatement after his lay-off, he in effect acquiesced or assented thereto, and during the period of his lay-off he is not entitled to any salary.

On the second issue, the Court added that Madrid's appointment prior to his removal was in an acting capacity. His separation from the service therefore cannot really be claimed as illegal, because his appointment was by its very nature temporary and can be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power, there being no need to show that the termination is for cause. Having resolved the case on these grounds, the Court found it unnecessary to pass upon the other questions raised by the parties.

Doctrine

A person claiming a right to a position in the civil service must institute the proper proceedings to assert that right within one year from the date of separation. Failure to do so amounts to abandonment of the office or acquiescence in the removal, and bars any action for reinstatement and any claim for back salary. The rule protects the Government from having to pay two salaries, one to the person actually holding the office and another to one not actually rendering service. Separately, an appointment in an acting or temporary capacity may be terminated at the pleasure of the appointing power, without need of showing cause, so that separation from such a position cannot be characterized as illegal.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Auditor General denying Madrid's claim, without special pronouncement as to costs, he having been allowed to litigate as a pauper.

Remember This

Memorize the one-year rule: a civil service employee who does not protest his separation within one year from the date of separation is deemed to have abandoned his office or acquiesced in his removal, and loses both reinstatement and back salary. Examiners use this case on the consequences of delay in contesting removal, and on the terminability at pleasure of acting or temporary appointments.