Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49839:gr-168484-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:55:58+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 168484 - Leah M. Nazareno et al. v. City of Dumaguete et al. / Reginald Manolo Cordova et al, Intervenors.
LEAH M. NAZARENO, CARLO M. CUAL, ROGELIO B. CLAMONTE, FLORECITA M. LLOSA, ROGELIO S. VILLARUBIA, RICARDO M. GONZALES, JR., ROSSEL MARIE G. GUTIERREZ, NICANOR F. VILLAROSA, JR., MARIE SUE G. CUAL, MIRAMICHI MAJELLA B. MARIOT, ALMA F. RAMIREZ, ANTOLIN D. ZAMAR, JR., MARIO S. ALILING, TEODULO SALVORO, JR., PHILIP JANSON ALTAMARINO, ANONIETTA PADURA, ADOLFO R. CORNELIA, IAN RYAN PATULA, WILLIAM TANOY, VICTOR ARBAS, JEANITH CUAL, BRAULIO SAYSON, DAWN M. VILLAROSA, AGUSTIN A. RENDOQUE, ENRIQUETA TUMONGHA, LIONEL P. BANOGON, ROSALITO VERGANTINOS, MARIO T. CUAL, JR., ELAINE MAY TUMONGHA, NORMAN F. VILLAROSA, RICARDO C. PATULA, RACHEL BANAGUA, RODOLFO CALUGCUGAN, PERGENTINO CUAL, BERNARD J. OZOA, ROGER JOHN AROMIN, CHERYL E. NOCETE, MARIVIC SANCHEZ, CRISPIN DURAN, REBECO LINCGONG, ANA LEE ESTRABELLA, MELCHOR B. MAQUILING, RAUL MOLAS, OSCAR KINIKITO, DARWIN B. CONEJOS, ROMEL CUAL, ROQUETA D. AMOR, DIOSDADO B. LAJATO, PAUL E. PINO, LITO C. PIÃ‘ERO, RODULFO ZOSA, JR., and JORGE ARBOLADO, Petitioners, v. CITY OF DUMAGUETE, represented by Hon. Mayor AGUSTIN R. PERDICES, DOMINADOR DUMALAG, JR., ERLINDA TUMONGHA, JOSEPHINE MAE FLORES, and ARACELI CAMPOS, Respondents.
REGINALD MANOLO CORDOVA and OMAR SERION, Intervenors.
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 30, 2004 in CA-G.R. SP No. 70254, and its Resolution2 dated May 6, 2005. The assailed Decision affirmed with modification the Orders3 issued by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dumaguete City, Branch 41, dated September 26, 2001 and January 17, 2001, in Civil Case No. 13013.
Then incumbent Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo (Remollo) and Agustin R. Perdices (Perdices) were among the candidates for mayor in Dumaguete City during the May 14, 2001 elections. Perdices won over Remollo and the former was to assume office on June 30, 2001.
Soon after Perdices assumed office, or on July 2, 2001, during the flag ceremony for city hall employees, Perdices announced that he was not honoring or recognizing the appointments made by Remollo.5 Anxious that their services would be terminated, Leah Nazareno, et al., as petitioners, filed with the RTC of Dumaguete City, a Petition for Mandamus, Injunction and Damages, with an Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction,6 against the City of Dumaguete, represented by then Mayor Perdices, Dominador Dumalag, Jr., Erlinda C. Tumongha, Josephine Mae Flores, and Araceli Campos, as respondents. The case was docketed as Special Proceedings Case No. 13013, and was raffled to Branch 41.
Petitioners averred that the appointments made by Remollo were valid, as they were issued pursuant to CSC Resolution No. 992411 of the CSC Accreditation Program, which granted the City of Dumaguete the authority to take final action on its appointments subject to the terms and conditions enumerated therein.7 In view of the city government's act of withholding the salaries and salary differentials of the appointees, as well as preventing them from reporting for work, the petitioners prayed that an injunctive writ be issued enjoining the respondents from doing any act or issuing any order, which would result in the actual or constructive dismissal of the petitioners.
On August 3, 2001, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction ordering and commanding the city government to refrain from doing any act, or issuing any order, dismissing/terminating/demoting the petitioners either actually or constructively, pending the final adjudication of the case.10 The court found the action of Director Abucejo irregular because the questioned appointments may only be invalidated by the CSC Regional Office upon the recommendation by the CSCFO. As such, the finding of Director Abucejo was not yet final.11 Respondents' Motion for Reconsideration12 was denied13 by the court.
On August 20, 2001, respondents moved for the dismissal of the injunction case on the ground that Director Abucejo's ruling, invalidating petitioners' appointments, attained finality when the "appointing authority" failed to move for its reconsideration.
Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to the CA via a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 assailing the September 26, 2001 and January 17, 2002 Orders of the RTC. On January 30, 2004, the CA denied the petition and accordingly dismissed the same.22 The court held that by express provision of Section 2,23 Rule VI of the CSC Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions, it was Mayor Perdices who had the locus standi to elevate the matter to the CSC.24 Their motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution25 dated May 6, 2005.
In their Comment,29 respondents contend that petitioners' act of seeking relief from the regular court and the CSC is a clear indication of forum shopping which is abhorred by this Court.30 A perusal of the pleadings filed by petitioners before this Court on the one hand, and the CA, on the other, showed that though they question different orders/decisions of different tribunals, petitioners were just playing with words but their real intention was to get a favorable decision on the same issue to suit their designs.31 Respondents further assert that petitioners are not entitled to damages in view of the illegality of their appointment. Considering the earlier ruling of the CSC invalidating their appointment, the courts cannot order them to return to work for to do so would mean creating new employment which is beyond its power to perform.
On the basis of the petitioners' arguments and the respondents' counter-arguments, the issues for resolution are as follows: 1) whether or not the petitioners have the legal personality to appeal the invalidation of their appointment; and 2) whether or not petitioners are entitled to the writ of injunction pending the final determination of the validity of their appointment.
The right to appeal is not a natural right or a part of due process, but a mere statutory privilege that may be exercised only in the manner prescribed by law.32 It is necessary that the same be instituted by the party who is given such authority. At this point, the concepts of "legal standing" and "real party-in-interest" become relevant.
Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because in some cases, suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Hence, the question in standing is whether such parties have "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions."
On the other hand, the question as to "real party-in-interest" is whether he is "the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment," or the "party entitled to the avails of the suit."
If legal standing is granted to challenge the constitutionality or validity of a law or governmental act despite the lack of personal injury on the challenger's part, then more so should petitioners be allowed to contest the nullification of their appointment. Thus, petitioners have the legal standing to challenge the act of the CSC.
The question on who the real party-in-interest is to challenge the invalidation of one's appointment has been settled in the case of Abella,37 where the Court held that both the "appointing authority" and the appointee may question the disapproval of an appointment.
Petitioners in the instant case, would like this Court to settle who the "appointing authority" is - is it the former mayor, who made the questioned appointments, or the incumbent mayor, who at the time of the invalidation of the appointment was the one holding the position? The appointing power of the mayor or the local chief executive is set forth in Republic Act (RA) 7160 or the Local Government Code.40 The power to appoint is vested in the office of the chief executive and not in the person occupying the position. The local chief executive exercises such power in his official capacity. Applying it in the present case, the appointing authority who had the right to assail the invalidation of the appointment is the mayor occupying the position at the time of the institution of the appeal and not the former mayor who made the assailed appointment.
Clearly, petitioners timely appealed the action of Director Abucejo to the CSC Regional Office, to the CSC Proper and ultimately to the CA. In fact, the CSC, in Resolution 040932 (on the appeal made by petitioners herein) recognized the right of the appointees to assail the nullification of their appointment. The CSC pronounced43 that the appointees themselves may appeal the disapproval of their appointments as when, at the time of the disapproval of their appointments, there is already a new appointing authority.44 Therefore, at the time of the issuance of the RTC Order dismissing the petition for injunction, Director Abucejo's action had not yet become final and executory in view of the timely appeal made by petitioners. It is thus error for the CA to affirm the finding of the trial court that petitioners' appeal did not prevent the earlier decision from attaining finality because of lack of legal personality on the part of the petitioners to institute the same.
This notwithstanding, we affirm the lifting of the writ of preliminary injunction earlier issued, and consequently, denying the issuance of a permanent writ of injunction, but on grounds different from those relied upon by the RTC and the CA.
The Court notes that the petition for injunction filed by petitioners before the RTC was premature. Petitioners initiated the instant case prior to the "invalidation" of their appointment by the CSC. Records show that it was the act of then incumbent Mayor Perdices when he announced that he would not recognize the questioned appointments, that prompted the petitioners to file the petition below. At that time, there was yet no action taken by the CSC. It was only after the filing of the petition that Director Abucejo invalidated the appointments. After the invalidation, still, petitioners could appeal, and in fact so appealed, to the CSC Regional Office and to the CSC Proper. Clearly then, petitioners had ample administrative remedies under the law to protect their rights. Perforce, it was premature for them to commence an action for injunction before the regular courts.
Moreover, in their petition before the CA Cebu City, assailing CSC Resolution Nos. 040932 and 050472, petitioners specifically prayed that the implementation of said resolutions be stayed pending appeal in the interest of justice and equity.45 In that case, petitioners sought to enjoin the execution of the CSC decision invalidating their appointment, which is the same subject matter in the instant case. In effect, we have a situation where a party is seeking the same relief from two different fora. This is proscribed by the Rules.
As earlier discussed, petitioners are given by law and related rules adequate remedies to protect their rights and interests. They have in fact made use of such remedies and there is thus no need to pursue the separate case of injunction. The law does not permit it and no emergency demands it.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The January 30, 2004 Decision and May 6, 2005 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz, with Associate Justices Ruben T. Reyes and Noel G. Tijam, concurring; rollo, pp. 48-54.
3 Penned by Judge Araceli S. Alafriz, CA rollo, pp. 270-271, 294-295.
6 CA rollo, pp. 20-32.
7 The authority of the Mayor to issue said appointments was embodied in a letter dated October 14, 1999, sent by then CSC Chairman Corazon Alma G. de Leon, to then City Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo (CA rollo, pp. 33-34); and in CSC Resolution No. 992411 (CA rollo, pp. 35-37).
8 CA rollo, pp. 214-215.
2. There was only one (1) en banc meeting of the City Personnel Selection Board (PSB) held on June 5, 2001 to consider the number of appointments thus issued and there was no other call for PSB meeting certified by the City HRMO.
3. There were no minutes available on the deliberation of the PSB of the 89 appointments listed in the ROPA as certified by the City HRMO.
4. There were no PSB statements certifying that there was actual screening and evaluation done on all candidates for each position.
5. The appointing officer of the 89 appointments was an outgoing local official who lost during the May 14, 2001 elections for City Mayor of Dumaguete City.
6. The 89 appointments were all issued after the elections and when the new city mayor was about to assume office (Id. at 214-215).
WHEREFORE, pending the hearing of the main case, and pursuant to Rule 58 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, let a writ of preliminary injunction issue ordering and commanding respondent City of Dumaguete, represented by Hon. Mayor Agustin R. Perdices from doing any acts or issuing any orders dismissing/terminating/demoting herein petitioners either actually or constructively, pending the final adjudication of this case.
Plaintiffs are each required to put up a bond equivalent to their one month salary basic pay under their new appointments.
SO ORDERED. (CA rollo, pp. 194-195).
WHEREFORE, the appeal of Leah Medina-Nazareno, et al. is hereby DISMISSED. Accordingly, the assailed Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. VII Decision dated February 14, 2002, affirming the action of the Civil Service Commission Field Office-Dumaguete in invalidating the appointments reflected in the June 2001 Report of Personnel Action of Dumaguete City, which include those of Medina-Nazareno, et al., is AFFIRMED. However, those appointees involved in a chain of promotions shall be automatically restored to their former positions.
The Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. VII is directed to monitor the implementation of this Resolution. (Id. at 72-81).
16 The case is docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 00665; id. at 134-149.
18 CA rollo, pp. 270-271.
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is DENIED due course and, accordingly, DISMISSED. Consequently, the orders dated September 26, 2001 and January 17, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City (Branch 41) are AFFIRMED.
23 Section 2. Request for reconsideration of, or appeal from, the disapproval of an appointment may be made by the appointing authority and submitted to the Commission within fifteen (15) calendar days from receipt of the disapproved appointment.
32 Philippine National Bank v. Garcia, Jr., 437 Phil. 289, 293 (2002), citing University of the Philippines v. Civil Service Commission, 228 SCRA 207 (1993).
33 G.R. No. 152574, November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 507, 519-520.
34 460 Phil. 830, 895 (2003).
35 Specifically Section 2, Rule 3 thereof; Miranda v. Carreon, 449 Phil. 285, 293 (2003).
36 Dagadag v. Tongnawa, G.R. NOS. 161166-67, February 3, 2005, 450 SCRA 437, 443-444; Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, supra note 33, at 521; Mathay, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 378 Phil 466, 482 (1999).
37 Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, supra, at 521-522.
39 Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, supra, at 518.
Section 444. The Chief Executive: Powers, Duties, Functions and Compensation.
41 Hon. Constantino-David v. Pangandaman-Gania, 456 Phil. 273, 291-292 (2003).
42 Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, supra note 33, at 521-522.
44 Citing CSC Resolution No. 01-1812 dated November 20, 2001, Re: Quirog, Liza M. citing CSC Resolution No. 00-22056 dated September 27, 2000 Re: Jonggoy, Ulysses T., et al. and CSC Resolution No. 98-0105 dated May 8, 1998 Re: Lena, Bolynn Faith.
46 Almeida v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159124, January 17, 2005, 448 SCRA 681, 694.
48 Civil Service Commission v. Tinaya, G.R. No. 154898, February 16, 2005, 451 SCRA 560, 566; Abella, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission, supra note 33, at 515.
49 Supra note 46, at 695-696.
50 353 Phil 740, 774 (1998).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.