Case Summary (G.R. No. L-28184)
Background of the Case
In September 1964, a vacancy arose for the position of Senior Clerk, which previously had an annual salary of P4,800. Purificacion V. Garcia filed an application for this position, having previously served as a Senior Clerk in the same division with a lower salary of P3,400. On September 12, 1964, the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals appointed Angelo Perez to the position, with a slightly lower salary of P4,200. Garcia protested Perez's appointment to the Civil Service Commission, claiming that she was next in rank and thus entitled to the position.
Decisions of the Lower Court
The Court of First Instance of Manila dismissed Garcia's petition, stating that she did not have a claim to the position but only a "preferential right" to be appointed. The court emphasized that since Perez had already been appointed and was discharging the duties of the position, Garcia's complaint had no legal basis. Additionally, the court noted that Garcia’s complaint was filed more than a year after Perez’s appointment, which barred her from any legal remedy.
Legal Findings
The key legal issue revolves around whether Garcia had the standing to initiate a quo warranto proceeding. The Philippine legal principle mandates that a petitioner in a quo warranto must establish entitlement to the office in question. Citing precedents, the court reiterated that those who do not assert a right to an office cannot challenge the title of another. Garcia’s claim of a mere preference for the position failed to meet this criterion.
Timeliness of the Action
The court also addressed the issue of the timeliness of Garcia’s action. The court determined that Garcia should have filed her petition within one year of Perez’s appointment, effective September 14, 1964. Garcia filed her petition on November 25, 1966, which the court found was beyond the permissible period. The court dismissed Garcia's argument that the pendency of her protest at the Civil Service Commission suspended the one-year period, indicating that remedies available through administrative channels do not impede the application of th
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. L-28184)
Case Overview
- This case involves an appeal by Purificacion V. Garcia questioning the legality of Angelo Perez’s appointment as Senior Clerk in the Fiscal Management and Budget Division of the Court of Appeals.
- The appeal arises from a decision made on June 29, 1967, by the Court of First Instance of Manila, which dismissed Garcia's petition for quo warranto.
- The pivotal issue is whether Garcia has the right to challenge Perez's appointment.
Factual Background
- In September 1964, a vacancy for the Senior Clerk position in the Fiscal Management and Budget Division of the Court of Appeals arose, with an authorized salary of P4,800 per annum.
- Garcia, already a Senior Clerk in the same division earning P3,400, applied for the vacant position citing her qualifications.
- On September 12, 1964, Perez was appointed to the position with a salary of P4,200, despite Garcia's application.
- Garcia protested Perez's appointment to the Civil Service Commission, asserting she was better qualified and entitled to the position due to being next in rank.
- The Civil Service Commissioner endorsed Garcia's protest to the Court of Appeals, which recommended the approval of Perez’s appointment.
- On August 8, 1966, the Commissioner of Civil Service approved Perez's appointment, which prompted Garcia to file a motion for reconsideration tha