Cristobal vs. Melchor

11/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078
VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 175

Cristobal vs. Melchor
No. L-43203. July 29, 1977.*
JOSE C. CRISTOBAL, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

ALEJANDRO MELCHOR and FEDERICO ARCALA,
defendants-appellees.
Laches; Laches defined.—In Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, this

Court stated that in a general sense, laches is failure or neglect,
for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done
earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a
reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert
it.
Same; Quo Warranto; Civil Service; Laches does not attach by
failure of respondent to join other employees in filing an action for
quo warranto within one (1) year from the time his cause of action
to seek reinstatement to a public office arose where during the
pendency of the said case the respondent continued to press for his
reinstatement extrajudicially and more importantly, because said
respondent can be expected to rely upon the outcome of the case
filed by his co-employees.—Cristobal was not one of the plaintiffs
in the civil, case, it is true, but his non-participation is not fatal to
his cause of action. During the pendency of the civil case Cristobal
continued to press his request for reinstatement together with the
other employees who had filed the complaint and was in fact
promised reinstatement as will be shown more in detail later.
More importantly, Cristobal could be expected—without
necessarily spending time and money by going to court—to relie
upon the outcome of the case filed by his co-employees to protect
his interests considering the similarity of his situation to that of
the plaintiffs therein and the identical relief being sought.
Laches; Quo Warranto; Civil Service; Laches does not attach
and failure to file quo warranto proceeding does not operate
adversely against a dismissed government employee where it was
the act of responsible government officials which contributed in the
delay of the filing of complaint for reinstatement .—The evidence
of Cristobal establish the following: After the Ingles suit was filed
in court, the dismissed employees, Cristobal included, continued
to seek reconsideration of their dismissal. It was then that
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016e43d9239230d1ba18003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/16
Executive Secretary Mutuc assured the employees that without

prejudice to the continuation of the civil action, he would work for
their rein-
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
176
176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
statement. Accordingly, some of the dismissed employees were

recalled to their respective positions in the Office of the President
among whom were the plaintiffs in the civil case and several
others who were not parties therein. Secretary Mutuc even tried
to place the others outside of the Malacanang Office, x x x In the
meantime, however, Secretary Mutuc was replaced by other
Executive Secretaries to whom Cristobal over and over again
presented his request for reinstatement and who gave the same
assurance that Cristobal would be recalled and re-employed at
“the opportune time”. It was this continued promise of the
government officials concerned which led Cristobal to bide his
time and wait for the Office of the President to comply with its
commitment, x x x Surely, it would now be the height of inequity
and cutting a deep wound in Our sense of justice, if after
Cristobal relied and reposed his faith and trust on the word and
promises of the former Executive Secretaries who dealt with him
and who preceded the herein respondent Executive Secretary
Melchor, We were to hold that he lost his right to seek relief
because of lapse of time. The doctrine of laches is an equitable
principle applied to promote but never to defeat justice.
Same; Same; Same; Statute of Limitations; Equity; Courts
will not be bound by strictures of statute of limitations and laches
when manifest wrong or injustice would result thereby.—In brief,
it is indeed the better rule that courts, under the principle of
equity, will not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of
limitations or the doctrine of laches when to do so, manifest wrong
and injustice would remit.
Civil Service; Backwages; Reinstatement; There being no
showing that respondent did not get any employment during the
year he was illegally dismissed from the service, the Court
awarded backwages in an amount equivalent to 5 years salary at
the rate last received by the respondent without qualification or
deduction.—Applying by analogy the rulings of this Court in the
matter of fixing backwages to employees who were victims of
unfair labor practices of their employers so as to obviate the

necessity of a hearing on the point and avoid further delay, and
considering the lapse of almost nine years before appellant filed
this suit, We resolve, to grant back salaries at the rate last
received by him only for a period of five (5) years without
qualification and deduction.
MUÑOZ -PALMA, J.:
Jose C. Cristobal appeals from a decision dated May 18,

1972 of the Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case
No. 83962
177
VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 177

which dismissed this complaint for declaratory

1
relief and
reinstatement in the government service.
The incidents which led to this suit are set forth in the
decision of the court a quo, thus:
“The plaintiff was formerly employed as a private secretary in the

President’s Private Office, Malacanan, Manila, having been
appointed to that position on July 1, 1961 with a salary of
P4,188.00 per annum. He is a third grade civil service eligible. On
or about the second week of January, 1962, the then Executive
Secretary Amelito R. Mutuc, by means of a letter dated January
1, 1962, informed the plaintiff that his services as private
secretary in the President’s Private Office were ‘terminated
effective today’. A similar letter was addressed by Secretary
Mutuc to some other employees in the Office of the President. The
dismissed employees appealed to the President by means of
letters dated January 3, 1962 and January 26, 1962 for a
reconsideration of their separation from the service. In a letter
dated February 27, 1962, their request for reconsideration was
denied by Secretary Mutuc, acting ‘by authority of the President’.
“On March 24, 1962, five of the employees who were separated
(not including the herein plaintiff) filed a civil action before the
Court of First Instance of Manila against Secretary Mutuc and
the cash-disbursing officer of the Office of the President praying
for reinstatement and the payment of their salaries effective as of
January 1, 1962, entitled ‘Raul R. Ingles, et als. vs. Amelito R.
Mutuc, et als.’ Civil Case No. 49965. From a judgment dismissing
their complaint, the said employees appealed to the Supreme
Court which rendered a decision promulgated on November 29,
1968 reversing the dismissal of their complaint and declaring
their removal from office as illegal and contrary to law, and
ordering their reinstatement and the payment of their salaries
from January 1, 1962 up to the date of their actual reinstatement
(G.R. No. L-20390).
“Sometime in May, 1962, when the civil action filed by Raul R.

Ingles, et als. was still pending in the Court of First Instance of
Manila, the dismissed employees who filed said action were
recalled to their positions in the Office of the President, without
prejudice to the continuation of their civil action. With respect to
the other employees who were not reinstated, efforts were exerted
by Secretary Mutuc to look for placements outside of Malacañan
so that they may be reemployed. The herein plaintiff was one of
those who had not been
_______________
1 This appeal originally was with the Court of Appeals, but in a resolution of
February 2, 1976, it was certified to this Tribunal as it involved purely a question
of law. On March 12, 1976, the appeal was accepted and the case declared
submitted for decision on the basis of the briefs filed with the Court of Appeals.
178

fortunate enough to be rcappointed to any positions as befits his

qualifications.
“He waited for Secretary Mutuc to make good his assurance
that he would be recalled to the service, until Secretary Mutuc
was replaced by other executive secretaries who likewise assured
the plaintiff of assistance to be reemployed at ‘the opportune
time’.
“After the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-20390
was promulgated on November 29, 1968, the plaintiff addressed a
letter to the Office of the President dated January 19, 1969,
requesting reinstatement to his former position and the payment
of salary from January 1, 1962 up to the time of actual
reinstatement, supposedly in accordance with the decision of the
Supreme Court in the aforementioned case. This request was
denied repeatedly by the Office of the President in successive
letters addressed to the plaintiff dated September 1, 1969,
January 19, 1970, April 23, 1970, May 23, 1970, and May 19,
1971, the last of which declared the matter ‘definitely closed’.” (pp.
151-153, CFI Record)
Having received the letter of May 13, 1971, from the Office
of the President, Jose Cristobal filed on August 10, 1971,
with the Court of First Instance of Manila a complaint
naming then Executive Secretary Alejandro Melchor and
Federico Arcala, cash disbursing officer, Office of the
President of the Philippines, as defendants, and praying for
the following:
“1. Declaring plaintiffs dismissal as illegal and contrary to

law;
Ordering defendant Executive Secretary Alejandro

“2. Melchor to certify the name of plaintiff in the payroll of
the Office of the President of the Philippines, to be
retroactive as of January 1, 1962, the effective date that
the plaintiff was illegally dismissed from the service;
“3. Ordering defendant Federico Arcala to pay all the
emoluments and/or salary to which the plaintiff is entitled
effective as of January 1, 1962, the date of his illegal
termination from the service; and
“4. Ordering the defendants to allow plaintiff to continue with
the performance of his duties in the Secretary Office Staff,
Office of the President of the Philippines.
“Plaintiff prays for such other relief or remedy as this Honorable

Court may deem just and equitable under the premises.” (pp. 1-3,
ibid.)
Answering the complaint, the defendants represented by

the Office of the Solicitor General alleged that plaintiff Jose
Cristobal had no cause of action as he is deemed to have
abandoned his office for failure to institute the proper
proceedings to assert his right within one year from the
date of
179
VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 179

separation pursuant to Sec. 16, Rule 66 of the Rules of

Court, he having come to court only after the lapse of more
than nine years, thereby in effect acquiescing to his
separation, and therefore he is not entitled to any salary
from termination of his employment, (pp. 38-40, ibid.)
On October 16, 1971, an amended complaint was
submitted to the trial court to include as additional
defendants Leticia B. Nonato who was allegedly appointed
to the position of Jose Cristobal and Simplicio Nonato,
husband of Leticia B. Nonato, and to invoke the additional
relief for reinstatement to the position occupied by
defendant Leticia B. Nonato. (pp. 55-58, ibid.)
The Nonatos were served with summons but did not file
an answer to the complaint, hence, on motion of the
plaintiff Cristobal, they were declared in default in an
order dated January 15, 1972. (p. 94, ibid.)
A pre-trial was held after which parties submitted “a
partial stipulation of facts” dated February 26, 1976. (pp.
102-104, ibid.)
Trial on the merits was held during which plaintiff
Cristobal submitted his documentary evidence marked
respectively as Exhibits “A” to “P” inclusive all of which
were admitted by the trial court. Counsel for the

defendants then manifested that no evidence was being
presented for the government.
On May 18, 1972, as already adverted to above, the trial
court then presided by the Honorable Conrado Vasquez,
now Justice of the Court of Appeals, rendered its decision
dismissing the complaint reasoning in the following
manner:
“Section 16 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court expressly provides

that an action against a public office or employee may not be filed
for the plaintiffs ouster from office unless the same is commenced
within one year after the cause of the ouster, or the right of the
plaintiff to hold such office or position arose. This period of one
year is a condition precedent for the existence of the cause of
action for quo warranto (Bumanlag vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-
11482, November 29, 1960). The rationale of this doctrine is that
the Government must be immediately informed or advised if any
person claims to be entitled to an office or position in the civil
service, as against another actually holding it, so that the
Government may not be faced with the predicament of having to
pay two salaries, one for the person actually holding the office
although illegally, and another for one not actually rendering
service although entitled to do so (Madrid vs. Auditor General,
G.R. No. L-12523, May 31, 1960). The fact that the petitioner
sought to pursue administrative remedies to secure his
180

reinstatement does not excuse the failure to file the action within
the one year period.
‘The pendency of administrative remedies does not operate to suspend

the period of one year within which a petition for quo warranto should be
filed. While it may be desirable that administrative remedies be first
resorted to, no one is compelled or bound to do so, and as said remedies
neither are Pre-requisite to nor bar the institution of quo warranto
proceedings, they should not be allowed to suspend the period of one
year. Public interest requires that the right to a public office should be
determined as speedily as practicable’ (3 Moran, 1963 Ed., p. 207, citing
Torres vs. Quintos, G.R. No. L-3304, April 5, 1951).” (pp. 154-155, ibid.)
We are now confronted with the following assignment of

errors in appellant Cristobal’s brief, to wit:
“I
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING PLAINTIFF-

APPELLANT GUILTY OF ABANDONMENT OF ACTION FOR
MORE THAN ONE YEAR.
“II
“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT

THIS CASE BEING BASED ON ACT OF THE GOVERNMENT
THAT HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE SUPREME COURT AS
ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO LAW SHOULD BE GOVERNED
BY THE SUBSTANTIVE LAW ON PRESCRIPTION OF
ACTION.” (p. 26, rollo)
The primary question to be resolved in this appeal is

whether or not appellant Cristobal his right to seek judicial
relief for not having filed his complaint within the one-year
period provided for in Section 16, Rule 66 of the Rules of
Court. In short, is the principle of laches or non-compliance
with the “Statute of Limitations” applicable against
appellant?
The Government holds fast to Section 16, Rule 66 of the
Rules of Court and so did the court a quo in upholding the
dismissal of appellant’s complaint which according to both
is essentially a quo warranto proceeding.
We agree with defendants-appellees that in this
jurisdiction the consistent doctrine followed by this Court is
that in actions of quo warranto involving right to an office,
the action must be instituted within the period of one year
from the time the cause
181
VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 181

2
of action arose.
Verily, this Court has stated in Unabia vs. City Mayor,
et al., 99 Phil. 253, 257:
“x x x This has been the law in the Island since 1901, the period
having been originally fixed in section 216 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Act No. 190). We find this provision to be an
expression of policy on the part of the State that persons claiming
a right to an office of which they are illegally dispossessed should
immediately take steps to recover said office and that if they do
not do so within a period of one year, they shall be considered as
having lost their right thereto by abandonment. There are
weighty reasons of public policy and convenience that demand the
adoption of a similar period for persons claiming rights to
positions in the civil service. There must be stability in the service
so that public business may not be unduly retarded; delays in the
statement of the right to positions in the service must be
discouraged, xx xx xx
x x x x x x x x x
“Further, the Government must be immediately informed or

advised if any person claims to be entitled to an office or a
position in the civil service as against another actually holding it,
so that the Government may not be faced with the predicament of
having to pay two salaries, one, for the person actually holding
the office, although illegally, and another, for one not actually
rendering service although entitled to do so. We hold that in view
of the policy of the State contained in the law fixing the period of
one year within which actions for qua warranto may be instituted,
any person claiming right to a position in the civil service should
also be required to file his petition for reinstatement with the
period of one year, otherwise he is thereby considered as having
abandoned his office.”
________________
2 Villegas vs. De la Cruz, 1965, 15 SCRA 720 citing; Unabia v. City

Mayor, et al., 99 Phil. 253, 257; Pinullar v. President of the Senate, L-
11667, June 30, 1958; Roque v. President of the Senate, L-10949, July 25,
1958; Madrid v. Auditor General, et al., L-13523, May 31, 1960; Mesias v.
Jover, L-8543, November 22, 1955; Abella v. Rodriguez, L-10512,
November 29, 1957; Eranda v. Del Rosario, L-10552, April 28, 1958;
Quingco v. Rodriguez, L-12144, September 17, 1958; Tabora v. City of
Cebu, L-11574, October 31, 1958; De la Cerna v. Osmena, L-12492, May
23, 1959; Argos v. Veloso, 83 Phil. 929; Tumulak v. Egay, 82 Phil. 828;
Bumanglag v. Fernandez, et al., L-11482, November 29. 1960; Cui v. Cui,
L-18727, August 31, 1964. See also Villaluz vs. Zaldivar, 15 SCRA 710.
182

In effect, it is the doctrine of laches which is invoked to

defeat Jose Cristobal’s suit, for not only did Cristobal fail to
file his complaint within one year from the date of
separation but, it is claimed, he allowed almost nine years
to pass before coming to court by reason of which he is
deemed to have acquiesced to his removal.
In Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, this Court stated that in a
general sense, laches is failure or neglect, for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have
been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled3 to assert it either has abandoned it
or declined to assert it.
However, as will be indicated below, there are certain
exceptional circumstances attending which take this case
out of the rule enunciated above and lead Us to grant relief
to appellant. Thus—
1. There was no acquiescence to or inaction on the part

Ruling of SC
of Jose Cristobal amounting to abandonment of his right to
reinstatement in office.
We lay stress on the findings of the trial court based on
the unrebutted evidence of plaintiff Cristobal that upon
receipt of the letter or January 1, 1962, advising him of his
separation from the service, Cristobal, with the other
dismissed employees, sought reconsideration in a letter
dated January 3, 1962, calling inter alia the attention of
then Executive Secretary Amelito Mutuc that he
(Cristobal) was a civil eligible employee with eight years of
service in the government and consequently entitled to
security of tenure under the Constitution.4 This was
followed by another letter of January 26, 1962.
Reconsideration having been denied, a complaint was
filed on March 24, 1962, with the Court of First Instance of
Manila entitled “Raul R. Ingles, et al. vs. Amelito R. Mutuc,
et al.”, (Civil Case 49965) which prayed for reinstatement
and payment of salaries as of January 1, 1962. The trial
court dismissed this complaint but upon appeal to the
Supreme Court the judgment was reversed in a Decision
promulgated on November 29, 1968, in G.R. L-20390, the
Court holding that the removal of the plaintiff-employees
was illegal and contrary to law and that
________________
3 April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 35.

4 pp. 108-109, CFI records
183
VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 183

they were entitled to be reinstated with payment of their

salaries from January
5
1, 1962 up to the date of their actual
reinstatement.
Cristobal was not one of the plaintiffs in the civil case, it
is true, but his non-participation is not fatal to his cause of
action. During the pendency of the civil case Cristobal
continued to press his request for reinstatement together
with the other employees who had filed the complaint and
was in fact promised reinstatement as will be shown more
in detail later.
More importantly, Cristobal could be expected—without
necessarily spending time and money by going to court—to
relie upon the outcome of the case filed by his co-employees
to protect his interests considering the similarity of his
situation to that of the plaintiffs therein and the identifical
relief being sought. On this point, We find a statement of
Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court

in Southern Pacific vs. Bogert, relevant and persuasive, and
We quote:
“The essence of laches is not merely lapse of time. It is essential

that there be also acquiescence in the alleged wrong or lack of
diligence in seeking a remedy. Here plaintiffs, or others
representing them, protested * * * and ever since they have * * *
persisted in the diligent pursuit of a remedy * * *. Where the cause
of action is of such a nature that a suit to enforce it would be
brought on behalf, not only of the plaintiff, but of all persons
similarly situated, it is not essential that each such person should
intervened in the suit brought in order that he be deemed
thereafter free from the laches which bars those who sleep on their
rights.” (250 U.S. 483, 39 S. Ct. 536, 63 L. Ed. 1099, 1106-1107;
Italics supplied. See also Overfield vs. Pennroad Corporation, et
al., 42 Fed. Supp. 586, 613)
2. It was an act of the government through its responsible

officials more particularly then Executive Secretary
Amelito Mutuc and his successors which contributed to the
alleged delay in the filing of Cristobal’s present complaint
for reinstatement.
The evidence of Cristobal establish the following: After
the Ingles suit was filed in court, the dismissed employees,
Cristobal included, continued to seek reconsideration of
their dismissal. It was then that Executive Secretary
Mutuc assured the employees that without prejudice to the
continuation of the civil action, he would work for their
reinstatement. Accordingly, some of the dismissed
employees were recalled to their
________________
5 26 SCRA 171
184

respective positions in the Office of the President among

whom were the plaintiffs in the 6civil case and several
others who were not parties therein. Secretary Mutuc even
tried to place the others outside of the Malacanang Office.
An affidavit of Emiliano Punzal, retired Presidential
Records Officer, attests to the fact that Jose C. Cristobal
“was among those in the list of separated employees
ordered for placement to a position
7
commensurate to his
qualification and experience.” In the meantime, however,
Secretary Mutuc was replaced by other Executive
Secretaries to whom Cristobal over and over again
presented his request for reinstatement and who gave the

same assurance that Cristobal would 8
be recalled and re-
employed at “the opportune time”.
It was this continued promise of the government officials
concerned which led Cristobal to bide his time and wait for
the Office of the President to comply with its commitment.
Furthermore, he had behind him the decision of the
Supreme Court in Ingles vs. Mutuc which he believed
should be applied in his favor. But when Cristobal, in
answer to his various letters, received the letter of May 19,
1971 from the Office of the President denying his
reinstatement and declaring the matter “definitely closed”
because of his failure to 9file an action in court within one
year from his separation, it was only then that he saw the
necessity of seeking redress from the courts.
Surely, it would now be the height of inequity and
cutting a deep wound in Our sense of justice, if after
Cristobal relied and reposed his faith and trust on the word
and promises of the former Executive Secretaries who dealt
with him and who preceded the herein respondent
Executive Secretary Melchor, We were to hold that he lost
his right to seek relief because of lapse of time.
The doctrine of laches is an equitable10
principle applied
to promote but never to defeat justice. Thus, where laches
is invoked against a plaintiff by reason of the latter’s
failure to come to court within the statutory period
provided in the law, the doctrine of laches will not be taken
against him where the defendant is shown to have
promised from time to time to grant
________________
6 Exhibits L, M, N, O, pp. 181-185 CFI records

7 Exhibit J. p. 197, ibid.
8 Exhibit P, p. 186, ibid.
9 pp. 14-18, ibid.
10 Bunch, et al. vs. United States, et al., 1918, 252 Fed. 673, 678
185
VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 185

11
the relief sought for. Again, We have jurisprudence that
where a defendant or those claiming under him recognized
or directly or impliedly acknowledged existence of the right
asserted by a plaintiff, such recognition may be invoked as
a valid excuse
12
for a plaintiffs delay in seeking to enforce
such right. In brief, it is indeed the better rule that courts,
under the principle of equity, will not be guided or bound
strictly by the statute of limitations or the doctrine of
laches13when to do so, manifest wrong and injustice would

result.
3. The dismissal of appellant Cristobal was contrary to
law on the strength of this Court’s Decision in Ingles vs.
Mutuc.
In Ingles the defendants-appellees maintained before
this Court that the principal issue in the case was whether
or not the plaintiffs-employees were occupying positions
primarily confidential in nature and therefore subject to
removal at the pleasure of the appointing power, and that
this issue was to be resolved in the affirmative. The Court
speaking through then Justice, later Chief Justice, Roberto
Concepcion, held inter alia that one holding in the
government a primarily confidential position is “in the Civil
Service” and that “officers or employees in the unclassified”
as well as “those in the classified service” are protected by
the provision in the organic law that “no officer or employee
in the Civil Service shall be removed or suspended except
for cause as provided by law” (Section 4, Article XII, 1935
Constitution); that while the incumbent of a primarily
confidential position holds office at the pleasure only of the
appointing power and such pleasure turns into displeasure,
the incumbent is not “removed” or “dismissed” but that his
term merely “expires”; that there was no evidence to
indicate that the respective positions of the dismissed
plaintiffs were “primarily confidential” in nature and on
the contrary the compensation attached and the
designation given thereto suggest the purely or
________________
11 Backus vs. Backus, 1919, 175 N.W. 400, 207 Mich. 690. This is an
action filed by one against his brother to recover corporate stocks bought
by the defendant with plaintiffs money which was filed after five years
from the time his cause of action arose. The defense of laches was not
upheld by the Supreme Court of Michigan, it appearing that defendant
promised from time to time to transfer the stocks to plaintiff.
12 Browning vs. Browning, et al., 100 S.E. 860, 85 W. Va. 46, (1919)
13 Fogg vs. St. Louis, H & K. R. Co. (CC.) 17 Fed. 871, American Digest,
1658 to 1896, Century Edition, Vol. 19, p. 462.
186

at least mainly clerical nature of their work; and

consequently, considering that the plaintiffs were
admittedly civil service eligibles with several years of
service in the Government, 14their removal from office was
“illegal and contrary to law”.
The Court’s Decision in Ingles vs. Mutuc constitutes the

law of the case now before Us.
Appellant herein, Jose Cristobal, is a civil service
eligible with eight (8) years of service in the government.
He was holding “Item 9”—“Private Secretary I”—in the
Budget for the “President’s Private Office” with annual
compensation of P4,188.00. No evidence was adduced by
the government to show 15
that Cristobal’s position was
“primarily confidential”. On the contrary as stated by this
Court in Ingles vs. Mutuc the compensation attached to this
item and the other items except for one and the designation
of the position indicate the purely clerical nature of the
functions of the employees dismissed from the service. In
fact, none of the letters sent to the herein appellant from
the Office of the President ever indicated that he was
holding his position at the pleasure of the appointing power
or that his services were terminated because his term of
office had “expired”. The only reason given—and this
appears in the letter of September 1, 1969 from the Office
of the President—was that he failed to institute the proper
proceeding to assert his right, if any, to the position within
the period of one year from the date of termination and
under settled jurisprudence he is deemed to have
abandoned16
his right to said office or acquiesced in his
removal.
To summarize, with the circumstances thus surrounding
this particular case, viz: (a) Jose Cristobal consistently
pressed for a reconsideration of his separation from the
service; (b) he was given assurance that he would be
recalled at the opportune time; and (c) that the sudden
termination of his employment without cause after eight
years of service in the government is contrary to law
following the ruling in Ingles vs. Mutuc which inures to the
benefit of Cristobal who is similarly situated as
________________
14 Supra, pp. 177-178.

15 p. 3, CFI records. Sec also Ingles vs. Mutuc, supra p. 177, where the
Court stated that except for “item 2” (one private secretary to the
President—P9,000.00) there is nothing in the other items in the budget for
“the Office of the President” to indicate that the respective positions are
primarily confidential in nature.
16 p. 14, CFI records.
187
VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 187

the plaintiffs in said case and who merely desisted from

joining the suit because of the assurance given him that he
would be recalled to the service—with all these factors, We
repeat, there is justification for not applying existing
jurisprudence to his case.
This Court, applying the principle of equity, need not be
bound to a rigid application of the law, but rather its action
should conform to the conditions or exigencies to a given
problem or situation in order to grant a relief that will
serve the ends of justice.
To paraphrase then Chief Justice John Edwin Marshall
of the United States Supreme Court, 17
let us to complete
justice and not do justice by halves. Just as in Ingles vs.
Mutuc this Court gave justice to plaintiffs, so shall We do
justice to Jose Cristobal. In granting relief to the herein
appellant on the matter of back salaries We note, however,
that there is no proof to show that during all these years
from January 1, 1962, to the present, appellant at no time
worked or was employed at some other office. In fairness to
the__Government We cannot ignore the probability of
Cristobal’s having sought employment elsewhere during
that period to support himself and his family.
Applying by analogy the rulings of this Court in the
matter of fixing backwages to employees who were victims
of unfair labor practices of their employers so as to obviate
the necessity of a hearing on the point and avoid further
delay, and considering the lapse of almost nine years before
appellant filed this suit, We resolve, to grant back salaries
at the rate last received by him only for a18 period of five (5)
years wthout qualification and deduction.
________________
17 “The court of equity in all cases delights to do complete justice, and

not by halves.” Marshall, C.J.—Knight vs. Knight, 3 P. Wms. 331, 334;
Corbet vs. Johnson, 1 Brock, 77, 81—both cited in Hefner, et al. vs.
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., 123 U.S., 309, 313.
18 Mercury Drug Co., Inc., et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al.,
L-23357, April 30, 1974, per Makasiar, J.
Feati University Club vs. Feati University, L-31503, August 15, 1974,
per Teehankee, J.
NASSCO vs. CIR, L-31852 and L-32724, June 28, 1974, per Teehankee,
J.
Almira, et al. vs. B.F. Goodrich Phil., Inc., L-34974, July 25, 1974, per
Fernando, J.
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. Employees Association vs.
188

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, the

decision of the court a quo is set aside. Defendants-
appellees or the Public Officials concerned are directed:
1. To reinstate Jose Cristobal, either in the Office of

the President or in some other government office, to
any position for which he is qualified by reason of
his civil service eligibility, subject to present
requirements of age and physical fitness; and
2. To pay appellant Cristobal back salaries for a
period of FIVE YEARS at the rate of Four
Thousand, One Hundred Eighty-eight Pesos
(P4,188.00) per annum without qualification and
deduction.
So Ordered.
Teehankee (Chairman), Martin, Fernandez and

Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., reserves his vote.
Decision set aside.
Notes.—Quo warranto is the remedy to try the right to

an office or franchise and to oust the holder from its
enjoyment, while mandamus only lies to enforce clear legal
duties not to try disputed titles. (Lota vs. Court of Appeals,
2 SCRA 715).
The reason for the rule of filing the action for quo
warranto within one year is that it is not proper that the
title to a public office be subjected to continue uncertainty
for the people’s interest requires that such right be
determined as speedily as possible. (Villegas vs. De la Cruz,
15 SCRA 720).
The argument that a school principal, who was replaced
by another allegedly because the former had already
reached the retirement age of 65 years, did not exhaust his
administrative remedies before filing his action for quo
warranto is not meritorious, considering that such action
should be brought within one year. (Gravador vs. Mamigo,
20 SCRA 742).
The filing of administrative remedy does not suspend
the period for filing the action for quo warranto. (Galano
vs. Roxas 67 SCRA 8).
——o0o——
_______________
Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., L-25291, January 30, 1971, per
Castro, J.; March 10, 1977 (Resolution on motion for reconsideration of
respondents) per Castro, C.J.
189
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Cristobal vs. Melchor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cristobal vs. Melchor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cristobal vs. Melchor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/7/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 078

VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 175

No. L-43203. July 29, 1977.*

JOSE C. CRISTOBAL, plaintiff-appellant, vs.

Laches; Laches defined.—In Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, this

Executive Secretary Mutuc assured the employees that without

176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cristobal vs. Melchor

statement. Accordingly, some of the dismissed employees were

unfair labor practices of their employers so as to obviate the

MUÑOZ -PALMA, J.:

Jose C. Cristobal appeals from a decision dated May 18,

VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 177

which dismissed this complaint for declaratory

“The plaintiff was formerly employed as a private secretary in the

“Sometime in May, 1962, when the civil action filed by Raul R.

178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

fortunate enough to be rcappointed to any positions as befits his

“1. Declaring plaintiffs dismissal as illegal and contrary to

Ordering defendant Executive Secretary Alejandro

“Plaintiff prays for such other relief or remedy as this Honorable

Answering the complaint, the defendants represented by

VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 179

separation pursuant to Sec. 16, Rule 66 of the Rules of

were admitted by the trial court. Counsel for the

“Section 16 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court expressly provides

180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

‘The pendency of administrative remedies does not operate to suspend

We are now confronted with the following assignment of

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING PLAINTIFF-

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT

The primary question to be resolved in this appeal is

VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 181

“Further, the Government must be immediately informed or

2 Villegas vs. De la Cruz, 1965, 15 SCRA 720 citing; Unabia v. City

182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In effect, it is the doctrine of laches which is invoked to

1. There was no acquiescence to or inaction on the part

3 April 15, 1968, 23 SCRA 35.

VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 183

they were entitled to be reinstated with payment of their

Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court

“The essence of laches is not merely lapse of time. It is essential

2. It was an act of the government through its responsible

184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

respective positions in the Office of the President among

presented his request for reinstatement and who gave the

6 Exhibits L, M, N, O, pp. 181-185 CFI records

VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 185

laches13when to do so, manifest wrong and injustice would

186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

at least mainly clerical nature of their work; and

The Court’s Decision in Ingles vs. Mutuc constitutes the

14 Supra, pp. 177-178.

VOL. 78, JULY 29, 1977 187

the plaintiffs in said case and who merely desisted from

17 “The court of equity in all cases delights to do complete justice, and

188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS, the

1. To reinstate Jose Cristobal, either in the Office of