[No. L-8759. May 25, 1956]SEVERINO UNABIA, petitioner and appellee, vs.THE HONORABLECITY MAYOR, CITY TREASURER, CITY AUDITOR and the CITYENGINEER, respondents and appellants.1. 1.PUBLICOFFICERS; EMPLOYEEILLEGALITYDISMISSED; INACTIONFORREINSTATEMENT ASABANDONMENT OF OFFICE.—If an employee is illegallydismissed, he may conform to sueh illegal dismissal oracquiesce therein, or by his inaction and by sleeping on liisrights he may in law be considered as having abandoned theoffice to which he is entitled to be reinstated. These defensesare valid defenses to an action for reinstatement.1. 2.ID.; ACTION OF Quo WARRANTO; MUST BE INSTITUTEDWITHIN ONE YEAR; EXPRESSION OF POLICY OF STATE;THE SAME PERIOD APPLICABLE TO POSMONS IN CIVILSERVICE.—In action of quo warranto involving right to anoffice, the action must be instituted within the period of oneyear. This has been in the Island since 1901, the periodliaving been originally fixed in section 216 of the Code of CivilProcedure (Act No. 1901) : This provision is an expression ofpolicy on the part of the state that persons claiming a right toan office of which they are illegally dispossessed sliouldimmediately take steps to recover said office and that if theydo not do so within a period of one year they shall beconsidered as having lost their right thereto by abandonment.There are weighty reasons of public policy and conveniencetliat demand the adoption of a similar period for personsclaiming rights to positions in the civil service. There must bestability in the service so tliat public business may not beundully retarded; delays in the settlement of the right ofpositions in the service must be discouraged.1. 3.ID.; ACTIONFORREINSTATEMENTINCIVILSERVICE; TO BE INSTITUTED WITHIN ONE YEAR.—Inview of the period of one year within which actions for quowarranto may be instituted, any person claiming right to aposition in the civil servlce should also be required to file hispetition for reinstatement within the period of one yearotherwise he is thereby considered as having abandoned hisoffice.1. 4.ID.; EMPLOYEE'S REMOVAL WITHOUT INVESTIGATIONAND CAUSE NULL AND VOID.—Where the removal of anemployee is made without investigation and cause, saidremoval is null and void and he is entitled to be reinstated tothe position from which he was removed.APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.Januanio T. Senoand Sabiniano E. Vasquezfor appellee.City Fiscal of Cebuand Quirico del Marfor appellants.LABRADOR, J.:Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebuordering respondents to reinstate petitioner as foreman (capataz),Garbage Disposal, Office of the City Engineer, Cebu City, at P3.90 perday from. the date of his removal.