Case Digest (G.R. No. L-48928)
Facts:
Mita Pardo de Tavera v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., G.R. No. L-48928, February 25, 1982, First Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.Plaintiff-appellant Mita Pardo de Tavera (a physician and member of the Society's Board representing the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office) filed suit on March 23, 1976 in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc. (the Society), several past and present directors, and the present Board, later amending to implead Francisco Ortigas, Jr.. She alleged she had been appointed Executive Secretary on April 27, 1973 and that on May 29, 1974 the Board summarily declared her position vacant and appointed Alberto Romulo in her stead, without lawful cause, resulting in material and moral damages and seeking reinstatement, back salaries and exemplary damages.
The defendants denied illegal removal, asserted that the Executive Secretary served at the pleasure of the Board under the Society’s Code of By-Laws, and raised affirmative defenses including prescription: that a quo warranto (if that were the nature of the action) must be filed within one year under Section 16, Rule 66, and that an ouster claim (or any challenge to directors’ qualifications) could not be made collaterally. Defendant Adil moved to dismiss as stating no cause of action and as prescribed. Plaintiff maintained the suit was for damages and constitutional violations and thus not subject to the one-year quo warranto bar.
The trial court (Court of First Instance) held the action was one for quo warranto and thus time-barred; alternatively it found no illegal removal because petitioner held office at the Board’s pleasure and her appointment lacked a fixe...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is the suit one for quo warranto (thus governed by the one-year period of Section 16, Rule 66), or is it an action for damages/other relief governed by ordinary prescription?
- If the suit is not one for quo warranto, is it barred by prescription under Article 1146 of the New Civil Code (four-year period)?
- Was petitioner illegally removed from the office of Executive Secretary in violation of the Society’s By-Laws, the Civil Code or the Constitution, entitling her to reinstatement and damages?
- Is it necessary to decide whether petitioner is protected by the Civil Service safeg...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)