University of the Philippines College of Law

Land Titles and Deeds H

Galano v. Roxas

Jesus Galano, Basilio Flores, Solticio Plaza, Isidro San Jose, Patricio Anastacio,
Rodolfo De Las Armas, Amado Regis, Pedro Cruz, Federico Manuel, Eulogio
Makiramdam, Apolonio Alfonso, Rodolfo Santiago, Moises Soloria, Benjamin Santos,
Case Name
Benjamin Mariano, Angel Guisama, Ruben Manahan, Billardo Mercado, Roberto
Salvador, Eligio Salvador, Rodencio Cuevas, Teodorico Sulit, Godofredo Dela Paz,
And Benjamin Francisco (petitioners)

Nemesio Roxas, personally and as Mayor of San Mateo, Rizal (respondent)

Topic Citizenship requirement

Case No. | Date G.R. No. L-31241 | 12 Sept 1975

Ponente J. Barredo

Petitioners who are members of the police force pray for reinstatement to their previous positions,
alleging then newly-elected mayor (respondent) coerced them to file courtesy resignations. The
mayor disputed this, claiming they actually neglected their jobs and has planned the en masse
resignation shortly after he was elected. The case was referred to the Police Commission (PC) and
the Civil Service Commission (CSC), who ordered respondent mayor to reinstate them. Roxas
Case Summary did not agree, and made an indorsement to the President himself that he will only reinstate
petitioners if the court says so.

The Court dismissed the petition, citing fatal defects. One is that the new appointees to the position
left by petitioners should have been given an opportunity to be heard. Second is that quo warranto
petitions have a prescription period of 1 year, and the period has already lapsed in this case.

RELEVANT FACTS

• Petitioners filed petition for mandamus but it was actually a quo warranto, praying that respondent
mayor comply with the Aug 13, 1969 indorsement of the Civil Service Commissioner Abelardo
Subido, ordering the restoration of petitioners to their old posts in the San Mateo Police Department

Background
• 1967: Roxas was elected as mayor of San Mateo, Rizal
• Jan. 2 - 6, 1968: Petitioners filed in his office 24 resignation letters + application for terminal leave,
all members of the police department of said town
• Mayor accepted resignation; payments on the applications for leave were made by the
municipal treasurer, duly received by petitioners
• Because of the resignation, only 8 police remained, so two municipal councilors had to perform
traffic and patrol duties
• Mayor Roxas soon appointed replacements
 University of the Philippines College of Law
Land Titles and Deeds H

• 12 Jan 1968: Petitioners wrote to the Police Commission (PC) and the CSC, alleging the mayor
threatened them into filing those “courtesy resignations”, praying that 1) resignation letters be
declared null and void, and 2) the replacements be disapproved
• CSC referred to the PC
• 1 Aug 1969: PC Hearing Officer recommended that the resignations be declared null and void, and
that petitioners be reinstated to their former positions, with payment of back salaries
• Approved by police commission en banc, forwarded to CSC, who then endorsed it to the
mayor
• 6 Oct 1969: Roxas made an indorsement to then president Ferdinand Marcos
• Alleged that petitioners were not performing their duties after he was elected, and the
planned en masse resignatios, that’s why he approved the resignations
• The mayor received a letter complaint, alleging that he coerced the police to resign (mayor
denied this)
• Mayor alleged that Subido and PC Acting Chair Crispino de Castro threatened him with
administrative charges if he does not reinstate petitioners to their former positions
• He said that he could not reinstate petitioners in their former positions as requested by
Subido (CSC), unless ordered by the court

RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio

W/N the petitioners • The new appointees to the positions left by petitioners should be given an
should be reinstated opportunity to be heard, as they are indispensable parties to the proceedings, as
to their former their “absence is fatal to the authority of this Court to act, their "presence being
positions? NO a sine qua non of the exercise of judicial power”
• Another fatal defect is that a petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting
titles to public office must be filed within one year from the date the petitioner
is ousted from his position
• Period is not interrupted by the prosecution of any administrative remedy
• After the period has lapsed, remedy of aggrieved party, if any, lies with
administrative authorities
• Theory of petitioners: They were separated from the service thru the ruse of
accepting their "courtesy resignations" between January 2 and 6, 1968 and
record shows they were aware of the supposed illegality of their ouster as early
as January 10, 1968, the date of their separate letters to the Police Commission
and the Civil Service Commission impugning the action of respondent mayor
—> period has already lapsed!

RULING
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED, without costs. The motion to declare petitioner Galano in
contempt of court is DENIED for lack of merit, the alleged intent to mislead the court not being beyond
doubt