Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17336)
Factual Background
The petitioners were employed in the Osmena Waterworks System, receiving daily wages and appointed at various times between January and July 1951. Their appointments were classified as temporary based on the pending status of their insurability and medical qualifications. By July 28, 1952, the petitioners were notified by Candelario Almendras, the Supervising Watermaster of the Osmena Waterworks System, that their positions would be terminated due to the depletion of funds and the completion of the reforestation work associated with the Buhisan Dam.
Legal Issues and Court's Findings
The court dismissed the petition for mandamus on several grounds. First, it held that the municipal board had the authority to abolish the petitioners' positions, as they were created solely through the board's decision. Second, the nature of the petitioners' appointments being temporary further justified their dismissal. Finally, the court found the petitioners to be guilty of laches for not instituting their petition in a timely manner. The court recognized that the abolition of a position can only be questioned if done in bad faith, which was not evidenced in this case.
Budget Considerations
A significant factor in the court’s decision was the approval of the budget for the fiscal year 1952-1953, which eliminated the petitioners' positions. Although the budget was approved after the notification of their separation, it was effective retroactively from July 1, 1952. Thus, the budgetary actions effectively ratified the earlier notification of termination. The court determined that the timing of the budget approval did not bear relevance to the legality of the separation.
Examination of Laches
On the issue of laches, the petitioners filed their case on August 17, 1955, which the court deemed excessively delayed, occurring over three years after their separation. The petitioners argued that they sought to pursue an administrative remedy; however, the court found that no proper administrative process was followed. The court cited a precedent, Unabia v. City Mayor of Cebu, which establ
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-17336)
Case Overview
- This case revolves around a petition for mandamus filed by the petitioners, Damaso Alipio and others, seeking to compel the respondents to reinstate them to their positions in the Osmena Waterworks System in Cebu City and to pay back salaries along with moral damages and costs.
- The appeal was taken from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Cebu, which dismissed the petition.
Background Facts
- Petitioners were laborers appointed to the Osmena Waterworks System, with the majority appointed on January 1, 1951, some on April 23, 1951, and others on July 1, 1951.
- Their appointments were temporary, pending reports on their insurability and medical examinations, as noted by the Commissioner of Civil Service.
- On July 28, 1952, the Supervising Watermaster, Candelario Almendras, notified the petitioners of their impending separation effective July 31, 1952, citing depletion of funds and the non-necessity of their positions due to the completion of reforestation efforts at the Buhisan Dam site.
- After their separation, the City Auditor and City Treasurer ceased payment of their salaries.
Budgetary Context
- The Cebu City Municipal Board approved the budget for the Osmena Waterworks System for the fiscal year 1952-1953 on April 8, 1952, but it was signed by the Acting Mayor on April 15, 1953.
- The approved budget, effec