 Roxas was the newly elected mayor and thereafter, almost all the members of the police

department filed their resignations. Respondent accepted the resignations, made the
corresponding payments on petitioners' applications for leave, and appointed replacements for
petitioners. Subsequently, petitioners addressed separate letters to the Police Commission and
the Civil Service Commission, complaining that respondent mayor threatened them into filing
those "courtesy resignations.”
 Civil Service Commission disapproved the appointments made by respondent and ordered him
to reinstate petitioners.
 As respondent would not comply with the CSC’s order for reinstatement, petitioners led the
instant petition for mandamus, but actually one for quo warranto.

WON the case can be decided without the replacements of petitioners as parties (NO)

WON the case was filed on time (NO)

1. Where a petition for mandamus or quo warranto would seek to have the Supreme Court
sanction the action of the CSC of disapproving the appointments of those who have
replaced petitioners their jobs, the removal of the replacements would be a necessary
consequence if the Supreme Court would hold petitioners' resignation to be illegal and
void.
 In either case, whether the matter of disapproval of the appointments of said
replacements is treated independently or a corollary of the Court's action on the
resignation of petitioners, the plain fact would remain that they (the replacements)
have a vital interest in the outcome of the petition. Consequently, the case cannot
be decided without giving them an opportunity to be heard. They are indispensable
parties to those proceedings and their absence is fatal to the authority of the
Supreme Court to act, their "presence being a sine qua non of the exercise of
judicial power.”
2. A petition for quo warranto and mandamus affecting titles of office must be filed within one
(1) year from the date the petitioner is ousted from his position. This period is not
interrupted by the prosecution of any administrative remedy. Accordingly, after said period
had lapsed the remedy of the aggrieved party, if any lies exclusively with administrative
authorities.
 he who claims the right to hold a public office allegedly usurped by another and who
desires to seek redress in the courts, should file the proper judicial action within the
reglementary period
 While it may be desirable that administrative remedies be first resorted to, no one is
compelled or bound to do so; and as said remedies neither are prerequisite to nor
bar the institution of quo warranto proceedings