In the local elections of 1967, respondent Nemesio Roxas was elected mayor of the Municipality of San Mateo, Rizal. Shortly after he assumed office there were filed with his office 24 resignations signed by petitioners Chief of Police Jesus Galano and his twenty-three co-petitioners, all members of the police department of said town. These resignations were accepted by respondent mayor.
As a result of the above resignations, 8 policemen of the town remained. With the police force thus badly depleted, two municipal councilors, Arriola and Valerio, had to perform traffic and patrol duties. Soon enough, respondent mayor appointed replacements to the positions vacated by petitioners.
Petitioners addressed separate letters to the Police Commission and the Civil Service Commission complaining that respondent mayor had threatened them into filing those "courtesy resignations" and praying that the same be declared null and void and the appointments of their respective replacements be accordingly disapproved.
The Civil Service Commission referred the matter for investigation to the Police Commission. Hearing Officer of the Police Commission who conducted the investigation submitted his report recommending that the resignations of petitioners be declared null and void and that they be reinstated to their former positions with corresponding payment of back salaries. This report was approved by the Police Commission en banc and forwarded to the Civil Service Commission, with the result that the latter made the indorsement to respondent mayor. Respondent then made the indorsement to the President (at this time, it was Marcos).
After respondent submitted copies of the transcript of the proceedings in the PolCom and other pertinent documents, as required, to the Office of the President, no further action has been taken by that office on respondent's indorsement. And as respondent would not comply with the orders of the Civil Service Commission, on November 20, 1969, the instant petition for mandamus (which is actually a quo warranto proceeding) was filed with this Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the quo warranto proceeding was properly filed.
Held:
NO. A petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be filed within 1 year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his position And this period is not interrupted by the prosecution of any administrative remedy. Accordingly, after said period has lapsed, the remedy of the aggrieved party, if any, lies exclusively with administrative authorities.
The reason is obvious. While it may be desirable that administrative remedies be first resorted to, no one is compelled or bound to do so; and as said remedies neither are pre-requisite to nor bar the institution of quo warranto proceedings, it follows that he who claims the right to hold a public office allegedly usurped by another and who desires to seek redress in the courts, should file the proper judicial action within the reglementary period.
In the case at bar, the theory of petitioners themselves is that they were separated from the service thru the ruse of accepting their "courtesy resignations" between January 2 and 6, 1968 and the record shows that they were aware of the supposed illegality of their ouster as early as January 10, 1968, the date of their separate letters to the Police Commission and the Civil Service Commission impugning the action of respondent mayor. It is thus evident that in the premises, they are beyond the help of the courts, their time to resort thereto having lapsed.
*Petitioner to declare Galano in contempt of court, DENIED
Petitioners addressed separate letters to the Police Commission and the Civil Service Commission complaining that respondent mayor had threatened them into filing those "courtesy resignations" and praying that the same be declared null and void and the appointments of their respective replacements be accordingly disapproved.
The Civil Service Commission referred the matter for investigation to the Police Commission. Hearing Officer of the Police Commission who conducted the investigation submitted his report recommending that the resignations of petitioners be declared null and void and that they be reinstated to their former positions with corresponding payment of back salaries. This report was approved by the Police Commission en banc and forwarded to the Civil Service Commission, with the result that the latter made the indorsement to respondent mayor. Respondent then made the indorsement to the President (at this time, it was Marcos).
After respondent submitted copies of the transcript of the proceedings in the PolCom and other pertinent documents, as required, to the Office of the President, no further action has been taken by that office on respondent's indorsement. And as respondent would not comply with the orders of the Civil Service Commission, on November 20, 1969, the instant petition for mandamus (which is actually a quo warranto proceeding) was filed with this Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the quo warranto proceeding was properly filed.
Held:
NO. A petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be filed within 1 year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his position And this period is not interrupted by the prosecution of any administrative remedy. Accordingly, after said period has lapsed, the remedy of the aggrieved party, if any, lies exclusively with administrative authorities.
The reason is obvious. While it may be desirable that administrative remedies be first resorted to, no one is compelled or bound to do so; and as said remedies neither are pre-requisite to nor bar the institution of quo warranto proceedings, it follows that he who claims the right to hold a public office allegedly usurped by another and who desires to seek redress in the courts, should file the proper judicial action within the reglementary period.
In the case at bar, the theory of petitioners themselves is that they were separated from the service thru the ruse of accepting their "courtesy resignations" between January 2 and 6, 1968 and the record shows that they were aware of the supposed illegality of their ouster as early as January 10, 1968, the date of their separate letters to the Police Commission and the Civil Service Commission impugning the action of respondent mayor. It is thus evident that in the premises, they are beyond the help of the courts, their time to resort thereto having lapsed.
*Petitioner to declare Galano in contempt of court, DENIED
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento