33. Unabia vs. City Mayor.docx - [No L-8759 SEVERINO UNABIA petitioner and appellee vs THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR CITY TREASURER CITY AUDITOR and the CITY

33. Unabia vs. City Mayor.docx - [No L-8759 SEVERINO UNABIA...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

[No. L-8759. May 25, 1956] SEVERINO UNABIA, petitioner and appellee, vs. THE HONORABLE CITY MAYOR, CITY TREASURER, CITY AUDITOR and the CITY ENGINEER, respondents and appellants. 1. 1.PUBLIC OFFICERS; EMPLOYEE ILLEGALITY DISMISSED; INACTION FOR REINSTATEMENT AS ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE.—If an employee is illegally dismissed, he may conform to sueh illegal dismissal or acquiesce therein, or by his inaction and by sleeping on liis rights he may in law be considered as having abandoned the office to which he is entitled to be reinstated. These defenses are valid defenses to an action for reinstatement. 1. 2.ID.; ACTION OF Quo WARRANTO; MUST BE INSTITUTED WITHIN ONE YEAR; EXPRESSION OF POLICY OF STATE; THE SAME PERIOD APPLICABLE TO POSMONS IN CIVIL SERVICE.—In action of quo warranto involving right to an office, the action must be instituted within the period of one year. This has been in the Island since 1901, the period liaving been originally fixed in section 216 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 1901) : This provision is an expression of policy on the part of the state that persons claiming a right to an office of which they are illegally dispossessed sliould immediately take steps to recover said office and that if they do not do so within a period of one year they shall be considered as having lost their right thereto by abandonment. There are weighty reasons of public policy and convenience tliat demand the adoption of a similar period for persons claiming rights to positions in the civil service. There must be stability in the service so tliat public business may not be undully retarded; delays in the settlement of the right of positions in the service must be discouraged. 1. 3.ID.; ACTION FOR REINSTATEMENT IN CIVIL SERVICE; TO BE INSTITUTED WITHIN ONE YEAR.—In view of the period of one year within which actions for quo warranto may be instituted, any person claiming right to a position in the civil servlce 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. 1. 4.ID.; EMPLOYEE'S REMOVAL WITHOUT INVESTIGATION AND CAUSE NULL AND VOID.—Where the removal of an employee is made without investigation and cause, said removal is null and void and he is entitled to be reinstated to the 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. Seno and Sabiniano E. Vasquez for appellee. City Fiscal of Cebu and Quirico del Mar for appellants. LABRADOR, J.: Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu ordering respondents to reinstate petitioner as foreman (capataz), Garbage Disposal, Office of the City Engineer, Cebu City, at P3.90 per day from. the date of his removal.
Image of page 1
Image of page 2

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture