G.R. No. 185664 - Balinghasay vs. Castillo

Petitioners were employed as laborers in the Osmena Waterworks System in Cebu City and were on daily wages.
Their appointments were made in connection with the reforestation project at the Buhisan Dam area, with the majority appointed on January 1, 1951, two on April 23, 1951, and the remaining on July 1, 1951.
The positions were created by the Municipal Board of Cebu City and were noted as temporary pending reports from the Government Service Insurance System concerning insurability or physical and medical examination.

On July 28, 1952, Appellee Candelario Almendras, then Supervising Watermaster, notified petitioners in writing that their services would end on July 31, 1952.
The reason given for the termination was the depletion of the waterworks funds and that their positions were not “urgently necessary for the present time” after the objectives of the reforestation project had been substantially met.

The city municipal board approved the budget for the Osmena Waterworks System for the fiscal year 1952-1953 on April 8, 1952 (Budget Ordinance No. 159), although it was signed by the Acting Mayor on April 15, 1953.
The ordinance provided that it would take effect retroactively as of July 1, 1952, effectively eliminating the positions of the petitioners which had appeared in the previous fiscal year’s budget under "Reforestation of Buhisan Watershed."
No subsequent budget re-established these positions, thus reinforcing the action taken by respondent Almendras and ratified by the retroactive budget ordinance.

Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus seeking both their reinstatement and payment of back salaries from the date of their separation, alongside moral damages and costs.
The petition claimed that respondents or their successors in office should be compelled to reinstate them in the office of the Osmena Waterworks System.

The separation was due to the abolition of the petitioners’ positions, which was within the power of the Municipal Board of Cebu City.
The appointments were temporary in nature.
The petitioners were guilty of laches due to the delay in filing their petition.

The lower court noted that the power to abolish positions, especially when done for practical reasons such as insufficient funds and the near completion of the reforestation project, is valid unless executed in bad faith—which was not alleged or demonstrated in this case.
The petition was filed on August 17, 1955, more than three years after the separation, and the petitioner's argument for delay by seeking an extra-legal remedy (via a Senator’s intercession) was deemed insubstantial as no precise administrative remedy was availed.

Whether the abolition of the petitioners’ positions by the Municipal Board of Cebu City, executed through the retroactive budget ordinance, was a lawful act despite the petitioners’ claim for reinstatement and back pay.
Whether the temporary nature of the petitioners’ appointments affects the validity of the petition for mandamus regarding their reinstatement when the positions were abolished.
Whether the petition should be barred on the grounds of laches given the considerable delay (more than three years) in filing the petition by the petitioners.