G.R. No. L-28184 - Garcia vs. Perez

In September 1964, the position of Senior Clerk in the Fiscal Management and Budget Division of the Court of Appeals (with an authorized salary of P4,800 per annum) became vacant.
Petitioner Purificacion V. Garcia, then holding another Senior Clerk position in the same division (with a salary of P3,400 per annum), filed a written application for the vacant position, asserting her qualifications.

On September 12, 1964, based on the recommendation of the Clerk of Court of Appeals, the Presiding Justice appointed Angelo Perez to the vacant Senior Clerk position, effective September 14, 1964.
At the time of his appointment, respondent Angelo Perez was holding the post of Cash and Payroll Clerk in the same division, receiving a lower salary (P3,960 per annum) compared to that of the Senior Clerk position.

On September 21, 1964, petitioner filed a protest with the Civil Service Commission alleging that she was next in rank, better qualified, and thus entitled to preferential appointment to the vacant position.
The protest was indorsed by the Civil Service Commission to the Court of Appeals for comment.
The Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals, however, recommended approval of respondent’s appointment.
The Chief of the Fiscal Management and Budget Division provided a communication stating that respondent’s appointment was based on a detailed review of personnel records and efficiency ratings, noting that petitioner lacked direct work experience in the division.

On August 8, 1966, the Commissioner of Civil Service approved respondent’s appointment as Senior Clerk with a salary of P4,200 per annum.
Upon this approval, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the protest decision, which was denied by the Commissioner on October 7, 1966.
Concurrently, the position of Cash and Payroll Clerk (vacated by respondent) was filled by the appointment of Virginia Soriano by the Presiding Justice.
Petitioner protested this new appointment on November 23, 1966 and then, on November 28, 1966, filed her formal protest against Soriano’s appointment, seeking instead her own appointment.

The CFI dismissed petitioner’s claim on the ground that she asserted merely a “preferential right” to the position without claiming entitlement to it, and since she had not been appointed, no legal cause of action could be sustained.
The court further ruled that the action was filed beyond the reglementary one-year period from the appointment of respondent (appointed effective September 14, 1964), rendering the petition time-barred.

Petitioner-appellant assigned four alleged errors in the lower court’s decision, questioning both her right to institute the quo warranto proceeding and the lowering of the filing period, among other issues.
The pivotal issue ultimately was whether a petitioner lacking a clear entitlement to the office may validly bring a quo warranto action challenging the legality of the incumbent’s appointment.

Whether the petitioner-appellant has the legal right to initiate a quo warranto proceeding to challenge the validity of respondent’s appointment.

Does the petitioner have a demonstrable legal entitlement to the Senior Clerk position such that she may question the appointment by quo warranto?
Is the fact that the petitioner asserted a “preferential right” (rather than an absolute right) sufficient to sustain such a proceeding?

Whether the one-year filing period prescribed under Sec. 16, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court is a mandatory limitation period that bars the petition when the action is initiated more than one year after the appointment, regardless of any pending administrative remedy.

Whether alternative grounds (e.g., as a remedy in mandamus) may be considered despite the procedural obstacle of non-impleader of the appointing authority, given that the petitioner failed to conclusively demonstrate her entitlement to the position.