ncc case

5
De Tavera v. Philippine Tuberculosis Society FACTS: Appellant was Executive Secretary of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society (Society for short)until the past Board of Directors declared her position vacant on May 29, 1974, and seven of thedirectors appointed Alberto Romulo to the position. More than one year after her removal,appellant filed a complaint with the trial court against the said appointing directors, the Society,the new Board of Directors, and Alberto Romulo, questioning the legality of her summary cutterfrom her office and seeking reinstatement thereto; contending That the action of the past Boardwas a nullity since four of the directors were not qualified to be elevated to the position becausethey were not members of the Society; and claiming that the removal was in violation of herrights under the By-Laws of the Society, the New Civil Code, and the New Constitution, whichthereby rendered the individuals responsible therefor, countable for damages. The trial courtrendered a decision holding that the suit was one for quo warranto and has thus prescribed; that,nevertheless, appellant had not been illegally removed because she was holding an appointmentat the pleasure of the Board, temporary in nature, and terminable at any time; and, that thequalifications of the members of the Board could not be attacked collaterally. Appellant appealedto the Court of Appeals, but the same was certified to the Supreme Court as only questions oflaw were involved ISSUE: W/N The appellant can claim damages under the new civil code? - NO HELD: The Supreme Court held, that even if the complaint questions appellant’s removal from her position and seeks her reinstatement thereto, the suit is not necessarily one of quo warranto sincethe allegations in the complaint constituting her cause of action show that the case is for damagesand the defendants-appellees, except one, are not actually holding the office in question; thatappellant is not entitled to damages because she has not been illegally ousted since pursuant to the Society’s Code of By -Laws, the Executive Secretary holds office at the pleasure of the Boardof Directors unless the term of employment has been fixed in the contract of employment, which in the case of appellant has not been so fixed.

Upload: chii

Post on 19-Aug-2015

5 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

ncc case

TRANSCRIPT

De Tavera v. Philippine Tuberculosis SocietyFACTS: Appellant was Executive Secretary of the Philippine Tuberculosis Society (Society for shortuntil the past !oar" of Directors "eclare" her position vacant on #ay $%& '%()& an" seven of the"irectors appointe" Alberto *o+ulo to the position. #ore than one year after her re+oval&appellant ,le" a co+plaint with the trial court a-ainst the sai" appointin- "irectors& the Society&the new !oar" of Directors& an" Alberto *o+ulo& .uestionin- the le-ality of her su++ary cutterfro+ her o/ce an" see0in- reinstate+ent thereto1 conten"in- That the action of the past !oar"was a nullity since four of the "irectors were not .uali,e" to be elevate" to the position becausethey were not +e+bers of the Society1 an" clai+in- that the re+oval was in violation of herri-hts un"er the !y23aws of the Society& the 4ew Civil Co"e& an" the 4ew Constitution& whichthereby ren"ere" the in"ivi"uals responsible therefor& countable for "a+a-es. The trial courtren"ere" a "ecision hol"in- that the suit was one for .uo warranto an" has thus prescribe"1 that&nevertheless& appellant ha" not been ille-ally re+ove" because she was hol"in- an appoint+entat the pleasure of the !oar"& te+porary in nature& an" ter+inable at any ti+e1 an"& that the.uali,cations of the +e+bers of the !oar" coul" not be attac0e" collaterally. Appellant appeale"to the Court of Appeals& but the sa+e was certi,e" to the Supre+e Court as only .uestions o5aw were involve"6SS7E: 894 The appellant can clai+ "a+a-es un"er the new civil co"e: 2 4;