Title
De Tavera vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc.
Case
G.R. No. L-48928
Decision Date
Feb 25, 1982
A doctor removed as Executive Secretary of a society challenged her ouster, claiming illegal removal and seeking damages. The Supreme Court ruled her appointment was at the Board's pleasure, making her removal lawful and denying her claims.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136448)

Applicable Law

This case primarily involves the interpretation of the Code of By-Laws of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society, Inc., provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines, and constitutional guarantees, particularly those regarding due process and equal protection under the law.

Procedural Background

The plaintiff-appellant lodged a complaint on March 23, 1976, alleging her wrongful removal from her position. The initial complaint was amended to include additional parties and claims. The defendants contended her removal was lawful, asserting that the position of Executive Secretary was held at the pleasure of the Board and that the plaintiff’s removal did not require cause or notice.

Nature of the Action

The lower court classified the suit as one for quo warranto, asserting that the action needed to be filed within one year from the date of her ouster. However, the plaintiff argued that her complaint should be viewed as seeking damages rather than reinstatement, thus invoking different statutory periods. The court later ruled that the action constituted a challenge to her removal and not one solely for damages.

Court’s Findings on Removal

The court affirmed that the plaintiff was not illegally removed as her appointment was at the pleasure of the Board of Directors, which meant her position could be terminated without cause. The court cited that under the Society’s By-Laws, the Executive Secretary serves at the pleasure of the Board, indicating that no violation of the due process was committed in her removal.

Analysis of By-Laws and Appointment Status

The court analyzed the By-Laws provisions relevant to the tenure and removal of officers, reaffirming that the absence of a fixed term indicated a temporary appointment. Therefore, the plaintiff’s position was terminable at the discretion of the Board. The minutes of various society meetings were reviewed to ascertain the context and validity of her appointment and subsequent removal.

Legal Implications of the Ruling

By determining the nature of her suit as not falling under quo warranto, and confirming the removal was neither unjust nor unlawful, the court effectively limited the appellant's claim to constitutional redres

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.