Gravador v. Mamigo

Gravador v.
Mamigo
Facts:
1. Petitioner Pedro Gravador was the principal of the Sta. Catalina Elementary School in Sta. Catalina, Negros Oriental
when he was advised by the then, Superintendent of Schools Angel Salazar, Jr., through the respondent Supervisor
Teodulfo E. Dayao, of his separation from the service on the ground that he had reached the compulsory retirement
age of 65 (He was accdg to pre-war records 66 years, 8 months, and 22 days old).
2. A few days later the respondent Eutiquio Mamigo was designated teacher-in-charge of the said elementary school.
3. Petitioner wrote the Director of Public Schools, protesting his forced retirement on the ground that the date of his
birth is not November 26, 1897 but December 11, 1901. He attached an affidavit of Lazaro Bandoquillo and Pedro A.
Sienes both of Amlan Negros Oriental, in which these two affiants declared that they knew that the petitioner “was
born on December 11, 1901, in the Municipality of Amlan formerly known as New Ayuquitan Province of Negros
Oriental, Philippines" because, "we were the neighbors of the late sps. Gravador (Pedro’s parents) and we were
present when Pedro was born; furthermore,we were also invited during the baptismal party a few weeks after the
birth of Pedro."
4. Petitioner wrote to the Division Superintendents of Schools, reiterating his claim that he had not reached the age of
65 and enclosing some papers in support thereof.
5. Subsequently, petitioner filed a suit for quo warranto, mandamus and damages against Mamigo, the District
Supervisor, the Superintendent of Schools, the Director of Public Schools and the Secretary of Education in CFI of
Negros Oriental. He asked the court to adjudge him principal of said school and asked school to order pay damages.
6. Respondents filed their Answer. Parties entered into a stipulation of facts and then case was submitted for decision.
7. Trial court granted petition. It held that petitioner was born on December 11, 1901. It ordered for immediate execution
hence, petitioner was reinstated.
a. According to the trial court, the post-war records (basis of petitioner) were intended to replace the pre-
war records (basis of respondent) and therefore the correct date of birth of the petitioner is December
11, 1901.
b. The court also took into account the verified answer in a cadastral proceeding in 1924 in CFI of Negros
Oriental, filed by the petitioner's brother, Romulo, now deceased. It is stated that Pedro, one of the co-
owners of a piece of land, was at the time 23 years old.
8. Respondents appealed directly to SC.
9. Petitioner asked for the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the issues posed had become moot with his
retirement from the service on December 11, 1966 and the payment to him of the corresponding retirement benefits.
10. Respondents contend that the trial court erred in placing full reliance on the post-war records to establish the date of
birth (December 11, 1901) of the petitioner. They argue that these records were made only because it was thought
that the pre-war records had been lost or destroyed, but as some pre-war records had since been located, the date
contained in the pre-war records should be regarded as controlling and that the finding of the Superintendent of
Schools that the petitioner was born on November 26, 1897 is an administrative finding that should not be disturbed
by the court.
NOTE: The controversy on the petitioner's date of birth arose as a result of the conflicting records of the Division of Schools
of Negros Oriental.
RESPONDENT’S BASIS: The pre-war records show his date of birth to be November 26, 1897. These records consist of two
Insular Teachers Cards and one Employee's Record Card. Based from these, Superintendent of Schools determined the
petitioner's age to be 66 years, 8 months and 22 days on August 15, 1964.
PETITIONER’S BASIS: The post-war records, an Elementary Teacher's Report Card, an Employee's Record Card, and an
Employee's Record of Qualifications, state that the petitioner was born on Dec. 11, 1901.
The problem is aggravated by two uncontroverted facts, namely, that the records of the church where the petitioner was
baptized were destroyed by fire, and that the municipal civil register contains no record of the petitioner's birth.
Issue: Whether trial court erred in ruling that petitioner was born on Dec. 11, 1901? NO.
Ratio: It is necessary to review the trial court's decision on the merits, considering that the computation of retirement
annuities is based among other things, on the number of years of service of a retiree, and that payment of benefits already
made to the petitioner on the basis of December 11, 1901 as the date of his birth would not exempt him from the
obligation to make a refund should this Court ultimately rule that he was actually born November 26, 1897, as the
respondents claim.
That the findings of fact of administrative officials are binding on the courts if supported by substantial evidence, is a
settled rule of administrative law, But whether there is substantial evidence supporting the finding of the Superintendent
of Schools is precisely the issue in this case. The school official based his determination of the petitioner's age on the pre-
war records in the preparation of which the petitioner does not appear to have taken a part. On the other hand, the
petitioner post-war records which he personally accomplished to prove the date of his birth.
SC held that lower court correctly relied upon the post-war records, for three cogent reasons.
In the first place, as Moran states, although a person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth, he may
testify as to his age as he had learned it from his parents and relatives and his testimony in such case is an assertion of
a family tradition.
Indeed, even in is application for back pay which he filed with the Department of Finance, through the Office of the
Superintendent of Schools, on October 7, 1948, the petitioner stated that the date of his birth is December 11, 1901. He
repeated the same assertion in 1956 and again in 1960 when he asked the Government Service Insurance System and the
Civil Service Commission to correct the date of his birth to December 11, 1901.
In the second place, the import of the declaration of the petitioner's brother, contained in a verified pleading in a cadastral
case way back in 1924, to the effect that the petitioner was then 23 years old, cannot be ignored. Made ante litem
motam by a deceased relative, this statement is at once a declaration regarding pedigree within the intendment and
meaning of section 33 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Thus, December 11, 1901 is established as the date of birth of the petitioner not only by evidence of family tradition
but also by the declaration ante litem motam of a deceased relative.1äwphï1.ñët
Finally, the patties are agreed that the petitioner has a brother, Constantino, who was born on June 10, 1898 and who
retired on June 10, 1963 with full retirement pay. The petitioner then could not have been born earlier than Constantino,
say in 1897 as pre-war records indicate, because Constantino is admittedly older than he was.
Petitioner’s action was not premature. Suit for quo warranto to recover a public office must be brought within one year.
Before filing this case the petitioner waited for eight months for the school officials to act on his protest. To require him
to tarry a little more would obviously be unfair to him since on April 13, 1965, when this case was filed, he had only four
months left within which to bring the case to court. There was neither manner nor form of assurance that the decision of
the Director of Public Schools would be forthcoming. The rule on exhaustion of administrative remedies does not apply
where insistence on its observance would result in the nullification of the claim being asserted.

Gravador v. Mamigo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Gravador v. Mamigo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gravador v.

You might also like