Case Digest (G.R. No. L-3304)
Facts:
Antonio C. Torres v. Eduardo Quintos, G.R. No. L-3304, April 05, 1951, the Supreme Court En Banc, Paras, C.J., writing for the Court.
The petitioner, Antonio C. Torres, had been Chief of Police of the City of Manila from March 3, 1936, until the arrival of the American liberation forces, when Col. Marcus E. Jones, U.S.A., assumed the functions of the office on orders of Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the request of President Osmeña. Torres served as an assistant to Col. Jones until March 15, 1945, when he left that post at his own request. Thereafter, the Manila police leadership passed through several military and civilian hands: Col. J. W. Holland; Lt. Col. Angel Tuason (acting chief, Mar. 1, 1946); Col. Lamberto T. Javalera; Col. Manuel de la Fuente; and finally the respondent, Eduardo Quintos, who qualified for the office on January 12, 1948, and whose appointment (and that of Javalera) was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.
On March 18, 1945, Torres was taken into custody by the Counter Intelligence Corps (C.I.C.) and was subsequently indicted for treason in the People’s Court; he was acquitted on January 16, 1948. After his acquittal Torres wrote the Mayor of Manila on February 6, 1948 inquiring about his official status and asserting an implied right to reinstatement; that claim was denied. He renewed the claim by letter to the President on July 7, 1948 and, upon advice of the Secretary of Justice on January 17, 1949, attempted judicial relief.
Torres filed a petition for quo warranto in the Supreme Court on January 26, 1949, which was dismissed on January 28, 1949 without prejudice to filing in the Court of First Instance. He then instituted quo warranto in the Court of First Instance of Manila on February 1, 1949. The trial court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not filed within the one-year reglementary period prescribed by Section 16, Rule 68 of the Rules of Court. Torres appealed to th...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Was the petition for quo warranto barred by the one-year reglementary period of Section 16, Rule 68, because it was not commenced within one year after the petitioner’s right to the office arose?
- Did the pendency of petitioner’s administrative remedies and the criminal prosecution for treason suspend or toll the one-year period, justifying the d...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)