[ G.R. No. L-2041. November 03, 1948 ] 82 Phil. 59
[ G.R. No. L-2041. November 03, 1948 ]
QUIRICO ABETO, PETITIONER, VS. SOTERA RODAS, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.: This is an original action for quo warranto in which the petitioner seeks the ouster of the respondent as presiding Judge of the Sixth Branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila and the reinstatement of the petitioner to said judicial position. It is alleged that the petitioner was occupying the position until August 1, 1941, when he was suspended by the President of the Commonwealth upon recommendation of this Court; that on October 12, 1946, after proper investigation, the petitioner was exonerated by the President of the Philippines from the charges that gave rise to his suspension; that notwithstanding his exoneration, the petitioner was not restored to his former position then held by the respondent. The petitioner herein invokes his right to the constitutional tenure of judges.
We note that this action was commenced only on March 2, 1948, or more than one year from October 12, 1946 when, according to his own theory, the petitioner should have been reinstated. Actions for quo warranto are now governed by Rule of Court No. 68, Section 16 of which provides that “Nothing contained in this rule shall be construed to authorize an action * * * an officer for his ouster from office unless the same be commended within one year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the plaintiff to hold office, arose; * * *.” A similar provision in the Code of Civil Procedure was given effect in Bautista vs. Fajardo, 38 Phil. 624, wherein this Court held: “It cannot be supposed that the Legislature intended that the right to a public office, when dependent upon pre- scription, should be subject to continued uncertainty; and the public interest clearly requires that such right should be determined as speedily as practicable.” We would go farther by holding that’the period fixed in the rule is a condition precedent to the existence of the cause of action, with the result that, if a complaint is not filed within one year, it cannot prosper although the matter is not set up in the answer or motion to dismiss.
We are therefore constrained to dismiss the present action. So ordered, without costs.
Moran, C.J., Pablo, Bengzon, Tuason, and Montemayor JJ., concur.