Garces vs. CA
Garces vs. CA
Garces vs. CA
259, JULY 17, 1996 Same; Same; Same; Same; Quo Warranto; Quo warranto tests the title to ones
99 office claimed by another and has as its object the ouster of the holder from its
Garces vs. Court of Appeals enjoyment while mandamus avails to enforce clear legal duties and not to try
G.R. No. 114795. July 17, 1996.* disputed titles.Considering that Concepcion continuously occupies the
LUCITA Q. GARCES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, disputed position and exercises the corresponding functions therefore, the
SALVADOR EMPEYNADO and CLAUDIO CONCEPCION, respondents. proper remedy should have been quo warranto and not mandamus. Quo
Administrative Law; Appointments; Transfers; Security of Tenure; A transfer warranto tests the title to ones office claimed by another and has as its object
requires a prior appointment; If the transfer is made without the consent of the the ouster of the holder from its enjoyment, while mandamus avails to enforce
official concerned, it is tantamount to removal without valid cause contrary to the clear legal duties and not to try disputed titles.
fundamental guarantee on non-removal except for cause.Not one of these Same; Commission on Elections; Jurisdiction; The settled rule is that decision,
grounds was alleged to exist, much less proven by petitioner when respondent rulings, order of the COMELEC that may be brought to the Supreme Court on
Concepcion was transferred from Gutalac to Liloy. More, Concepcion was certiorari under Sec. 7, Art. IX-A are those that relate to the COMELECs
transferred without his consent. A transfer requires a prior appointment. If the exercise of its adjudicatory or quasi-judicial powers involving elective regional,
transfer was made without the consent of the official concerned, it is tantamount provincial, and city officials.This provision is inapplicable as there was no case
to removal without valid cause contrary to the fundamental guarantee on non- or matter filed before the COMELEC. On the contrary, it was the COMELECs
removal except for cause. Concepcions transfer thus becomes legally infirm and resolution that triggered this controversy. The case or matter referred to by the
without effect for he was not validly terminated. Constitution must be something within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., it
Same; Same; Same; Acceptance is indispensable to complete an appointment. must pertain to an election dispute. The settled rule is that decision, rulings,
His appointment to the Liloy post, in fact, was incomplete because he did not order of the
accept it. Acceptance, it must be emphasized, is indispensable to complete an 101
appointment.
_________________ VOL. 259, JULY 17, 1996
* THIRD DIVISION. 101
100 Garces vs. Court of Appeals
100 COMELEC that may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Sec. 7,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Art. IX-A are those that relate to the COMELECs exercise of its adjudicatory or
Garces vs. Court of Appeals quasi-judicial powers involving elective regional, provincial, and city officials. In
Same; Same; Same; There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position. this case, what is being assailed is the COMELECs choice of an appointee to
Corollarily, Concepcions post in Gutalac never became vacant. It is a basic occupy the Gutalac Post which is an administrative duty done for the operational
precept in the law of public officers that no person, no matter how qualified and set-up of an agency.
eligible he is for a certain position may be appointed to an office which is not Same; Same; Same; Controversies involving an appointive, not an elective,
vacant. There can be no appointment to a non-vacant position. The incumbent official does not call for the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.The
must first be legally removed, or his appointment validly terminated before one controversy involves an appointive, not an elective, official. Hardly can this
could be validly installed to succeed him. matter call for the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. To rule otherwise
Same; Actions; Mandamus; Words and Phrases; Mandamus applies only where would surely burden the Court with trivial administrative questions that are best
petitioners right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful.These ventilated before the RTC, a court which the law vests with the power to exercise
factors negate Garces claim for a well-defined, clear, certain legal right to the original jurisdiction over all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
Gutalac post. On the contrary, her right to the said office is manifestly doubtful court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.
and highly questionable. As correctly ruled by respondent court, mandamus, PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
which petitioner filed below, will not lie as this remedy applies only where The facts are stated in the resolution of the Court.
petitioners right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful. It will not Pacatang Law Office for petitioner.
issue to give him something to which he is not clearly and conclusively entitled. Narciso P. Barbaso for Salvador Empeynado and Claudio Concepcion.
Rodolfo Cab. Enriquez for Eulalio Salcedo, et al. 7 Issued on February 4, 1987, Rollo, p. 18.
RESOLUTION 8 Rollo, p. 18. The memorandum was dated August 18, 1987 (Petition, p. 5) but
FRANCISCO, J.: the CA said it was August 17, 1987 (CA Decision, p. 4).
Questioned in this petition for review is the decision1 of the Court of Appeals2 9 Rollo, p. 18.
(CA), as well as its resolution, which af- 103
_________________ VOL. 259, JULY 17, 1996
1 Promulgated on December 29, 1993. The subsequent Motion for 103
Reconsideration was denied on March 10, 1994. Garces vs. Court of Appeals
2 Thirteenth Division: Ynares-Santiago, J., ponente, Herrera, Ibay-Somera, JJ., spondent Concepcion continued occupying the Gutalac office, the COMELEC en
concurring. banc cancelled his appointment to Liloy.10
102 On February 26, 1988, Garces filed before the RTC a petition for mandamus with
102 preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction and damages against
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Empeynado11 and Concepcion, among others. Meantime, the COMELEC en
Garces vs. Court of Appeals banc through a Resolution dated June 3, 1988, resolved to recognize respondent
firmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court3 (RTC) of Zamboanga del Norte in Concepcion as the Election Registrar of Gutalac,12 and ordered that the
dismissing a petition for mandamus against a Provincial Election Supervisor and appointments of Garces to Gutalac and of Concepcion to Liloy be cancelled.13 In
an incumbent Election Registrar. view thereof, respondent Empeynado moved to dismiss the petition for
The undisputed facts are as follows: mandamus alleging that the same was rendered moot and academic by the said
Petitioner Lucita Garces was appointed Election Registrar of Gutalac, COMELEC Resolution, and that the case is cognizable only by the COMELEC
Zamboanga del Norte on July 27, 1986. She was to replace respondent Election under Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. The RTC, thereafter, dismissed
Registrar Claudio Concepcion who, in turn, was transferred to Liloy, Zamboanga the petition for mandamus on two grounds, viz., (1) that quo warranto is the
del Norte.4 Correspondingly approved by the Civil Service Commission,5 both proper remedy,14 and (2) that the cases or matters referred under the
appointments were to take effect upon assumption of office. Concepcion, constitution pertain only to those involving the conduct of elections. On appeal,
however, refused to transfer post as he did not request for it.6 Garces, on the respondent CA affirmed the RTCs dismissal of the case. Hence, this petition.
other hand, was directed by the Office of Assistant Director for Operations to The issues raised are purely legal. First, is petitioners action for mandamus
assume the Gutalac post.7 But she was not able to do so because of a proper? And, second, is this case cognizable by the RTC or by the Supreme
Memorandum issued by respondent Provincial Election Supervisor Salvador Court?
Empeynado that prohibited her from assuming office in Gutalac as the same is On the first issue, Garces claims that she has a clear legal right to the Gutalac
not vacant.8 post which was deemed vacated at the time of her appointment and qualification.
On February 24, 1987, Garces was directed by the same Office of Assistant Garces insists that the vacancy was created by Section 2, Article III of the
Director to defer her assumption of the Gutalac post. On April 15, 1987, she Provisional Constitution.15 On the contrary, Concepcion posits that he did not
received a letter from the Acting Manager, Finance Service Department, with an vacate his Gutalac post as he did not accept the
enclosed check to cover for the expenses on construction of polling booths. It ______________
was addressed Mrs. Lucita Garces E.R. Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte which 10 Rollo, p. 19.
Garces interpreted to mean as superseding the deferment order.9 Meanwhile, 11 Empeynado retired from service and was succeeded by Atty. Muhamad
since re- Hashan.
______________ 12 Comment, p. 2; Rollo, p. 25.
3 Regional Trial Court, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte, Br. 11. 13 CA Decision, pp. 2, 6; Rollo, pp. 16, 20.
4 Rollo, p. 17. 14 Rollo, p. 19.
5 Garces appointment was approved on October 20, 1986, while that of 15 Proclamation No. 3, March 25, 1986, Pres. Aquino.
Concepcions was on January 23, 1987. 104
6 Rollo, p. 18. 104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED remain in the service or his separation/replacement is in the interest of
Garces vs. Court of Appeals the service.
transfer to Liloy. Not one of these grounds was alleged to exist, much less proven by petitioner
Article III, Section 2 of the Provisional Constitution provides: when respondent Concepcion was transferred from Gutalac to Liloy. More,
All elective and appointive officials and employees under the 1973 Constitution Concepcion was transferred without his consent. A transfer requires a prior
shall continue in office until otherwise provided by proclamation or executive appointment.19 If the transfer was made without the consent of the official
order or upon the designation or appointment and qualification of their concerned, it is tantamount to removal without valid cause20 contrary to the
successors, if such is made within a period of one year from February 25, fundamental guarantee on non-removal except for cause.21 Concepcions
1986. (Italics supplied). transfer thus becomes legally infirm and without effect for he was not validly
The above organic provision did not require any cause for removal of an terminated. His appointment to the Liloy post, in fact, was incomplete because he
appointive official under the 1973 Constitution.16 The transition period from the did not accept it. Acceptance, it must be emphasized, is indispensable to
old to the new Constitution envisioned an automatic vacancy;17 hence the complete an appointment.22 Corollarily, Concepcions post in Gutalac never
government is not hard put to prove anything plainly and simply because the became vacant. It is a basic precept in the law of public officers that no person,
Constitution allows it.18 Mere appointment and qualification of the successor no matter how qualified and eligible he is for a certain position may be appointed
removes an incumbent from his post. Nevertheless, the government in an act of to an office which is not vacant.23 There can be no appointment to a non-vacant
auto-limitation and to prevent indiscriminate dismissal of government personnel position. The incumbent must first be legally removed, or his appointment validly
issued on May 28, 1986, Executive Order (E.O.) No. 17. This executive order, terminated before one could be validly installed to succeed him. Further, Garces
which applies in this case as it was passed prior to the issuance of Concepcions appointment was ordered to be deferred by the COMELEC. The deferment order,
transfer order, enumerates five grounds for separation or replacement of elective we note, was not unequivocably lifted. Worse, her appointment to Gutalac was
and appointive officials authorized under Article III, Section 2 of the Provisional even cancelled by the COMELEC en banc.
Constitution, to wit: These factors negate Garces claim for a well-defined, clear, certain legal right to
1 1. the Gutalac post. On the contrary, her right to the said office is manifestly
Existence of a case for summary dismissal pursuant to Section 40 of the doubtful and highly questionable. As correctly ruled by respondent court,
Civil Service Law; mandamus, which petitioner filed below, will not lie as this remedy applies only
2 2. where petitioners right is founded clearly in law
Existence of the probable cause for violation of the Anti-Graft and _______________
Corrupt Practices Act as determined by the Ministry Head concerned; 19 Palma-Fernandez v. dela Paz, 160 SCRA 751.
3 3. 20 Ibid.
Gross incompetence or inefficiency in the discharge of functions; 21 Art. IX-B, Sec. 2(3), 1987 Constitution.
4 4. 22 Javier v. Reyes, 170 SCRA 560.
Misuse of public office for partisan political purposes; 23 Costin v. Quimbo, 205 Phil. 117.
_________________ 106
16 Radia v. Review Committee Under E.O. 17, 157 SCRA 749. 106
17 Ibid., pp. 120-121. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
18 Dario v. Mison, 176 SCRA 85, 120. Garces vs. Court of Appeals
105 and not when it is doubtful.24 It will not issue to give him something to which he is
VOL. 259, JULY 17, 1996 not clearly and conclusively entitled.25 Considering that Concepcion continuously
105 occupies the disputed position and exercises the corresponding functions
Garces vs. Court of Appeals therefore, the proper remedy should have been quo warranto and not
1 5. mandamus.26 Quo warranto tests the title to ones office claimed by another and
Any other analogous ground showing that the incumbent is unfit to has as its object the ouster of the holder from its enjoyment, while mandamus
avails to enforce clear legal duties and not to try disputed titles.27
Garces heavy reliance with the 1964 Tulawie28 case is misplaced for material This provision is inapplicable as there was no case or matter filed before the
and different factual considerations. Unlike in this case, the disputed office of COMELEC. On the contrary, it was the COMELECs resolution that triggered this
Assistant Provincial Agriculturist in the case of Tulawie is clearly vacant and controversy. The case or matter referred to by the Constitution must be
petitioner Tulawies appointment was confirmed by the higher authorities making something within the jurisdiction of the COMELEC, i.e., it must pertain to an
his claim to the disputed position clear and certain. Tulawies petition for election dispute. The settled rule is that decision, rulings, order of the
mandamus, moreover, was against the Provincial Agriculturist who never claimed COMELEC that may be brought to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Sec. 7,
title to the contested office. In this case, there was no vacancy in the Gutalac Art. IX-A are those that relate to the COMELECs exercise of its adjudicatory or
post and petitioners appointment to which she could base her claim was quasi-judicial powers30 involving elective regional, provincial, and city officials.31
revoked making her claim uncertain. In this case, what is being assailed is the COMELECs choice of an appointee to
Coming now to the second issue. occupy the Gutalac Post which is an administrative duty done for the operational
The jurisdiction of the RTC was challenged by respondent Empeynado29 set-up of an agency.32 The controversy involves an appointive, not an elective,
contending that this is a case or matter cognizable by the COMELEC under official. Hardly can this
Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the 1987 Constitution. The COMELEC resolution cancelling ______________________________
the ap- 30 Filipinas Engineering & Machine Shop v. Ferrer, 135 SCRA 25.
__________________ 31 Sec. 2(2), Art. IX-C.
24 University of San Agustin vs. C.A., 230 SCRA 761; Tamano v. Manglapus, 32 Gloria v. de Guzman, 249 SCRA 126.
214 SCRA 587; Sanson v. Bamos, 63 Phil. 198; Marcelo v. Tantuico, Jr., 142 108
SCRA 439. 108
25 National Investment and Development Corporation v. Aquino, 163 SCRA 153. SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
26 Pilar v. Secretary of Public Works, 19 SCRA 360. Garces vs. Court of Appeals
27 Lota v. Court of Appeals, 112 Phil. 619; 2 SCRA 715. matter call for the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. To rule otherwise
28 Tulawie v. The Provincial Agriculturist of Sulu, 120 Phil. 595. would surely burden the Court with trivial administrative questions that are best
29 Garces claims this issue cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The ventilated before the RTC, a court which the law vests with the power to exercise
records, however, reveal that this was tackled in the court a quo (cited in the CA original jurisdiction over all cases not within the exclusive jurisdiction of any
Decision, p. 3; Rollo, p. 17). court, tribunal, person or body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.33
107 WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is hereby
VOL. 259, JULY 17, 1996 DENIED without prejudice to the filing of the proper action with the appropriate
107 body.
Garces vs. Court of Appeals SO ORDERED.
pointment of Garces as Election Registrar of Gutalac, he argues, should be Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ.,
raised only on certiorari before the Supreme Court and not before the RTC, else concur.
the latter court becomes a reviewer of an en banc COMELEC resolution contrary Petition denied.
to Sec. 7, Art. IX-A. Notes.There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office,
The contention is without merit. Sec. 7, Art. IX-A of the Constitution provides: or even an absolute right to hold it. Except constitutional offices which provide for
Each commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its members any case or special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any
matter brought before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for vested right in an office or its salary. (National Land Titles Registration
decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or Administration vs. Civil Service Commission, 221 SCRA 145 [1993])
resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by A demotion, under Section 11, Rule VII of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
the rules of the commission or by the commission itself. Unless otherwise Book V of Executive Order No. 292, is defined as the movement from one
provided by this constitution or by law, any decision, order, or ruling of each position to another involving the issuance of an appointment with diminution in
commission may be brought to the supreme court on certiorari by the aggrieved duties, responsibilities, status or rank which may or may not involve reduction in
party within thirty days from receipt of a copy thereof. salary. On the other hand, Section 10 of the same rule defines a reassignment as
the movement of an employee from one organizational unit to another in the
same department or agency which does not involve a reduction in rank, status,
or salary and does not require the issuance of an appointment. A demotion,
therefore, involves the issuance of
_______________
33 Sec. 19(6) of BP 129 as amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. 7691, otherwise known
as the Expanded Jurisdiction Law.
109
VOL. 259, JULY 17, 1996
109
People vs. Cruz
an appointment. (Fernando vs. Sto. Tomas, 234 SCRA 547 [1994])
o0o
Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.