Admin Digest- Madrigal v Lecaroz

G.R. No. L-46218 October 23, 1990 JOVENTINO MADRIGAL, petitioner-appellant, vs. ROV. GOV. ARI!TEO M. LE"ARO#, VI"E-GOVERNOR "EL!O #OLETA, JR., ROVIN"IAL $OARD MEM$ER! DOMINGO RIEGO AND MAR"IAL RIN"IE% ROV. ENGR. ENRI&'E M. I!IDRO, A$RA(AM T. TAD'RAN AND T(E ROVIN"E O) MARIND'&'E, respondents-appellees.

public respondents, the! aver that it has become an established part of our   7urisprudence, being a public polic! repeatedl! cited b! the courts in m!riad of mandamus cases, that actions for reinstatement should be brought *ithin one !ear from from the date date of dismis dismissal sal,, other* other*ise ise,, the! the! *ill *ill be barred barred b! laches. )he )he pend penden enc! c! of an admi admini nist stra rati tive ve reme remed! d! befor before e the the +ommission does not stop the running of the one 3"4 !ear period *ithin *hich a mandamus case for reinstatement should be filed. I!!'E 8hether I!!'E 8hether or not the petitioner ma! still be entitled to reinstatement

191 , public respondents abolished petitionerFACTS: FACTS: On No*e+ber 2, 191, appellant Joventino Madrigal's position as a permanent construction captain in the office of the Provincial Engineer from the annual Roads Bridges und Budget Budget for fiscal !ear "#$"-"#$% "#$"-"#$% b! virtue virtue of Resoluti Resolution on &o. %(. )he abolition *as allegedl! due to the poor financial condition of the province and it appearing that his position *as not essential. Madrigal appealed to the +ivil ervice +ommission. e transmitted a follo*-up letter to the +ommission regard regarding ing his appeal. appeal. On Januar Januar! ! $, "#$(, "#$(, the +ommissi +ommission on in its "st ndorsement declared the removal of Madrigal from the service illegal. On A/t 4, 19, 19 , Madrigal sent a letter to the Provincial Board re/uesting implement implementation ation of the resolution resolution of the +ommissi +ommission on and conse/uen conse/uentl! tl!,, reinstatement to his former position. o*ever, the Provincial Board, denied Madrigal's re/uest for reinstatement because his former position no longer  e0ists. Madrig Madrigal al then then filed filed a petiti petition on before before the +ourt +ourt of irst irst nstan nstance ce of  Marindu/ue against public respondents for mandamus  and damages see1ing restoration of his abolished position in the Roads and Bridges und Budget of the Province, reinstatement to such position2 and pa!ment of his bac1 salaries plus damages. )he trial court issued an order dismissing the petition on the ground that Madrigal's cause of action *as barred b! laches. ence, this petition. Madrigal alleges that the one 3"4 !ear period prescribed in an action for quo warranto is not applicable in an action for mandamus because Rule 56 of the Rules of +ourt does not provide for such prescriptive period. )he declaration b! the trial court that the pendenc! of administr administrativ ative e remedies remedies does not operate to suspend the period of one 3"4 !ear *ithin *hich to file the petition for mandamus , should be confined to actions for quo warranto  onl!. On the contrar! contrar!,, he contends contends that e0haustion e0haustion of administr administrativ ative e remedies remedies is a condition sine qua non  before one can petition for mandamus.On the part of 

(ELD &O, (ELD  &O, he is alread! barred b! laches. )he unbending 7urisprudence in this 7urisdiction is to the effect that a petition for quo warranto  and mandamus affecting titles to public office must be filed *ithin one 3"4 !ear from the date the petitioner is ousted from his position. )he +ourt noted that in actions of quo warranto  involving right to an office, the action must be instituted *ithin the period of one !ear. )his has been the la* in the island since "#", the period period having having been originall! originall! fi0ed in ection %"5 of the +ode of +ivil Procedure 39ct &o. "#4.)he +ourt f inds this provision to be an e0pression of polic! on the part of the tate that persons claiming a right to an office of *hich the! are illegall! dispossessed should immediatel! ta1e steps to recover said office and that if the! do not do so *ithin a period of one !ear, the! shall be considered as having lost their right thereto b! abandonment. )here are *eight! reasons of public polic! and convenie convenience nce that demand demand the adoption of a similar similar period for persons claiming rights to positions in the civil service. )here must be stabilit! in the service so that public business ma! 3sic4 be undul! retarded2 dela!s in the statement of the right to positions in the service must be discouraged. )he fatal dra*bac1 of Madrigal's cause is that he came to court out of time. 9s aforestat aforestated, ed, it *as onl! after four 3(4 !ears and t*ent! t*ent! 3%4 da!s from the abolition of his position that he file the petition for mandamusand damages. damages. )his single single circumsta circumstance nce has closed closed the door for an! 7udicial remed! in his favor.  9nd this one 3"4 !ear period is not interrupted b! the prosecution of an! administrative remed! 3)orres v. :uintos, ;; Phil. (.R. &o. ;%;(#, 9ugust %,

"#;#, citing Pascual v. Provincial Board of &ueva Eci7a, "5 Phil. (552 Mondano v. ilvosa, #$ Phil. "(