You're currently signed in as:
User
Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2d66?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[EMILIO B. ALLER v. SERGIO OSMEÑA](https://www.lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c2d66?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c2d66}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show printable version with highlights

[ GR No. L-12168, Feb 28, 1959 ]

EMILIO B. ALLER v. SERGIO OSMEÑA +

DECISION

105 Phil. 243

[ G. R. No. L-12168, February 28, 1959 ]

EMILIO B. ALLER, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. SERGIO OSMEÑA, JR., AS FORMER PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, PEDRO UY CALDERON, AS ACTING PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, THE PROVINCIAL BOARD OF CEBU, LADISLAO PALMA, AS FORMER PROVINCIAL TREASURER, F. ORDONEZ, AS PRESENT PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, AND ROSARIO D. MACROHON, AS PRESENT PROVINCIAL TREASURER, ALL OF CEBU PROVINCE, RESPONDENTS AND APPELLEES.

D E C I S I O N

LABRADOR, J.:

Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissing the action of petitioner for the recreation of his position and his reinstatement therein on the ground that the complaint was  filed  almost three  years after the suppression of his position and his removal from service.

It appears from the pleadings that  petitioner was appointed clerk in the office of the Provincial Auditor of Cebu on  January 1, 1951, he  being a first  grade civil service eligible. On August 31, 1952 his position was abolished  by the Provincial Board, allegedly in bad  faith and for political reasons, and his services terminated. He filed his complaint on  September 27, 1955, praying that his position be  recreated and that he be  reinstated in this position. Former Governor Osmeña filed an answer, denying that the abolition of petitioner's  position  by the Provincial Board was made in bad faith  and alleging that said abolition was effected in pursuance of a policy of retrenchment. Similar answer was filed by the Provincial Auditor, who further alleged  that the abolition of petitioner's position was made  with the approval  of the Secretary of Finance and that petitioner has no cause of action, no appeal having made previously to the Auditor-General and to the President  of  the  Philippines.   Pending trial of the case,  respondents moved to  dismiss the action  on the ground that the action was  not filed within one year.  The court below granted  this motion, and upon  its refusal to  reconsider the order  of dismissal,  appeal was  made  to  this  Court. In  this Court a motion  to dismiss has been filed on the additional  ground that the province of Cebu has not been made a party defendant.

The motion  for dismissal  for failure of petitioner-appellant to include the province of Cebu as a party respondent is well founded.   (Cabanes  vs. Rodriguez, G. R. No. L-9799,  prom. May 31,  1957).  Another ground for dismissal is the failure of petition to state a cause  of action, it appearing that the former position occupied by petitioner-appellant has  been  abolished with  the approval of the Secretary  of Finance.

The judgment appealed from is  hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioner.   So  ordered.

Paras, C. J,, Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., and Endencia, JJ., concur.

tags