Facts:

The case involves Andres de la Cerna as the petitioner and appellant against Sergio Osmeña, Jr., and others as respondents and appellees. On July 1, 1946, Andres de la Cerna was appointed as a detective in the City of Cebu's police department by the Mayor. He faced administrative charges for "grave misconduct, serious irregularity in the performance of his duty, and violation of law and duty," leading to his suspension on June 7, 1953. Following the expiration of the 60-day suspension period, de la Cerna wrote to the City Mayor on August 7, 1953, asserting his right to reinstatement under Republic Act No. 557. However, on October 10, 1953, he received a letter from the Acting Mayor informing him that his position had been abolished in the 1953-1954 General Fund Budget, resulting in the termination of his services.

On May 5, 1956, de la Cerna filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking to compel the City Mayor, municipal board...

Facts:

1. Appointment and Suspension:

   • Petitioner Andres de la Cerna, a civil service eligible, was appointed as a detective in the Cebu City Police Department on July 1, 1946.
   • On June 7, 1953, he was suspended due to administrative charges for "grave misconduct, serious irregularity in the performance of his duty, and violation of law and duty" filed by the Mayor of Cebu.

2. Request for Reinstatement:

   • After the 60-day suspension period expired on August 7, 1953, de la Cerna wrote to the City Mayor requesting reinstatement under Republic Act No. 557.
   • On October 10, 1953, he received a letter from the Acting Mayor stating that his position had been abolished in the 1953-1954 General Fund Budget, and his services were terminated.

3. Filing of Mandamus Petition:

   • On May 5, 1956, de la Cerna filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking reinstatement and payment of back salaries from the expiration of the 60-day suspension period.
   • Respondents (City Mayor, municipal board members, city treasurer, and city auditor) filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted on September 11, 1956, citing the precedent in Unabia vs. City Mayor of Cebu.
   • A motion for reconsideration was denied on January 28, 1957, prompting the appeal.

4. Contested Allegations:

   • De la Cerna claimed that Administrative Case No. 22 was still pending investigation.
   • Respondents countered that he had already been found guilty and dismissed from service.
   • The Supreme Court noted a lack of evidence to resolve this factual dispute but confirmed that de la Cerna’s position was abolished, and he was separated from service on October 10, 1953.

5. Timeliness of Action:

   • De la Cerna filed his petition for reinstatement almost three years after his separation from service.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Prescriptive Period for Reinstatement Claims:

   • Following the doctrine in Unabia vs. City Mayor of Cebu, the Court reiterated that a civil service employee claiming a right to a position must file a petition for reinstatement within one year from the date of separation. Failure to do so constitutes an abandonment of the office.

2. Abolition of Position:

   • The Court acknowledged that de la Cerna’s position was lawfully abolished, and his separation from service was valid.

3. Timeliness of Action:

   • De la Cerna’s petition, filed almost three years after his separation, was untimely and barred by the one-year prescriptive period.

4. No Error in Trial Court’s Decision:

   • The trial court correctly applied the Unabia doctrine in dismissing the petition, and the Supreme Court found no reason to overturn the decision.