Title
Alipio vs. Rodriguez
Case
G.R. No. L-17336
Decision Date
Dec 26, 1963
Laborers in Cebu City's reforestation project were terminated due to fund depletion and project completion. Their positions were abolished by the Municipal Board, upheld as valid. Petition for reinstatement dismissed due to laches and lack of bad faith in abolition.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-17336)

Facts:

  1. Employment Details:

    • Petitioners were laborers in the Osmena Waterworks System, Cebu City, receiving daily wages.
    • Most were appointed on January 1, 1951; two on April 23, 1951; and the rest on July 1, 1951.
    • Their positions were created by the Municipal Board of Cebu City for a reforestation project at Buhisan Dam.
    • Their appointments were noted as "temporary pending report from the Government Service Insurance System" regarding insurability or physical/medical examination.
  2. Termination of Employment:

    • On July 28, 1952, Candelario Almendras, Supervising Watermaster, informed petitioners that their services would terminate on July 31, 1952, due to the depletion of waterworks funds and the non-urgency of their positions.
    • The reforestation project was nearly completed, rendering their services unnecessary.
    • The City Auditor and City Treasurer stopped paying their salaries after July 31, 1952.
  3. Budgetary Changes:

    • The Municipal Board approved the 1952-1953 budget (Budget Ordinance No. 159) on April 8, 1952, effective retroactively from July 1, 1952.
    • The positions of petitioners under the "Reforestation of Buhisan Watershed" item were eliminated in the new budget and not recreated in subsequent budgets.
  4. Legal Action:

    • Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus on August 17, 1955, seeking reinstatement, back salaries, moral damages, and costs.
    • They claimed they pursued administrative remedies before filing the petition, but no specific remedy was identified.

Issue:

  1. Whether the abolition of petitioners' positions by the Municipal Board of Cebu City was valid.
  2. Whether the temporary nature of petitioners' appointments affects their claim for reinstatement.
  3. Whether petitioners are barred by laches due to the delay in filing their petition.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.