Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND
DIVISION
|
J/SR. SUPT. JOSUE
G. ENGAÑO,
Petitioner, - versus - HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS, DILG Secretary JOSE D. LINA, JR., and CHIEF SUPT. ARTURO W. ALIT,
Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 156959 Present: PUNO, J.,
Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: June 27, 2006 |
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA,
J.:
Assailed and sought to be set aside in
this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court with prayer for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction,
are
the following issuances of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
72590, to wit:
1.
Decision[1] dated November 22, 2002, affirming an earlier decision of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City declaring the appointment of petitioner Sr. Supt. Josue G. Engaño to the position of Chief, Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology (BJMP), as null and void for petitioner’s failure to meet
the minimum qualification standards set by the Civil Service Commission (CSC);
and
2.
Resolution[2] dated
Stripped to the bare essentials, the
material facts may be stated as follows:
Private respondent Arturo W. Alit occupied, since July 1999, the position of Jail/Chief Superintendent,
Deputy Chief, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Department of the
Interior and Local Government (DILG). On March 29, 2001, he was designated Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Bureau in view of the resignation of then BJMP Director, P/Maj. Gen.
Aquilino G. Jacob, Jr.
Petitioner Josue G. Engaño, on the other
hand, held
during the period material the position of
Jail Senior Superintendent of the BJMP.
Pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 4 of
the Office of the President, the Chief Directorate for Personnel of the BJMP
submitted to the DILG Selection Board for Senior Executive Positions (SB-SEP) a
seniority lineal list from which were culled the names of eligible candidates
for the position of Director, BJMP.
Of the eleven (11) candidates interviewed, the Board ranked private respondent Alit
first,
being
the only one who fully met the CSC Qualification Standards for the position in question, more particularly,
the one-year experience requirement as Chief Superintendent. Consequently, then
DILG Secretary Jose D. Lina recommended the appointment of private respondent Alit to the interested position.
However, despite Secretary Lina's
recommendation, the President, on
On
After due hearing, the trial court
denied private
respondent
Alit's plea for a TRO and set the case for hearing on his application for
prohibition and injunction.
In a Memorandum[5] of
Subsequently, the trial court, in an
Order[6] dated
In the interest of public service and in
the exercise of judicial activism, a cease and desist order is hereby issued
restraining both parties, Arturo W. Alit and Josue G. Engaño from performing
and discharging the duties of the Office of Director BJMP, and in order not to
prejudice the operation and control of the said office, the Court hereby
designate[s] Jose Lina in his capacity as Secretary of DILG to perform the
duties of the Director, BJMP for a period of twenty (20) days.
In the meantime, set the Application
for Preliminary Injunction and Prohibition and Quo Warranto on
In compliance with the aforequoted
directive, Secretary Lina assumed the duties and functions of Director, BJMP.
Eventually, the trial court rendered on
Viewed from the foregoing considerations it
appears that [petitioner] Engaño does not possess the minimum qualifications required
by law for the position of Director, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
(BJMP) and as such his appointment thereto is hereby declared null and void.
There being no valid appointment to the contested position [respondent]
Alit's prior designation as Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology (BJMP) remains unless revoked by the President or a permanent and
valid appointment is made.
SO ORDERED.[8] (Word in bracket
added.)
Following the trial court’s denial of his motion for
reconsideration, petitioner Engaño elevated the case to the CA whereat his appellate
recourse
was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 72590.
As stated at the outset hereof, the CA, in its decision[9] of
In its Resolution of March 17, 2003,
the Court issued a TRO enjoining public respondent DILG Secretary Jose D. Lina,
Jr., his agents, representatives, or anyone acting in his behalf, from
enforcing DILG Department Circular No. 2001-25 and performing the duties and
functions as concurrent Director of the BJMP.
Meanwhile,
Petitioner Engaño, in his Memorandum, raises eight
issues, foremost of which are the following:
1.)
Whether the prerogative of the President xxx to appoint
persons of his/her trust and confidence to certain positions in government duly
classified as presidential appointees can be declared null and void by the
court;
2.)
Whether a nominee to a presidential appointive
position can validly maintain an action for quo warranto against the
person appointed thereto by the President;
3.)
Whether a mere nominee can acquire a vested right
to an appointment to the contested post upon a court finding that the person
appointed lacks the minimum qualifications;
4.)
Whether the compulsory retirement of petitioner
Engaño has rendered this petition moot and academic;
5.)
Whether petitioner Engaño is entitled to salary
differential, emoluments, rata, allowances, rank of director and all benefits
attached to the position of Chief, BJMP, being unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived by
public respondent DILG Secretary Lina; and
6.)
Whether petitioner Engaño is entitled to moral, nominal,
exemplary and corrective damages as provided particularly in Articles 2218,
2219, 2220, 2221, 2222, 2223, and 2229 of the Civil Code due to the alleged deliberate,
willful, arbitrary, baseless, unfounded and wrongful acts of private respondent
Alit and public respondent DILG Secretary Lina.
The petition must fail.
Indeed, on issue No. 4 alone, the present petition must be
dismissed for having become moot and academic due to supervening events,
namely, the compulsory retirement of petitioner Engaño from the service, and
the appointment of private respondent Alit as Director of the BJMP. Since then, Alit has
also taken his oath of office and has assumed and performed the duties of the
position.
Time and again, courts have refrained from even expressing an opinion in a case
where the issues have become moot and academic, there being no more justiciable
controversy to speak of, so that a determination thereof would be of no
practical use or value.[10]
The suit commenced at the RTC was one for quo warranto, which, by its
nature, is an action against the usurpation of a public office or position.[11] The issue thereat thus turns on who, between petitioner Engaño and private respondent Alit, is entitled to the position of BJMP Director. Petitioner Engaño
having retired in the meantime, and private respondent Alit having been
subsequently appointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to the contested
position, all questions on the validity of the previous appointment of Engaño
have become
moot.
In his Memorandum, petitioner raised two additional
issues,
namely, his entitlement to salary
differential, representation and transportation allowances (RATA), and other benefits
which he allegedly lost due to the loss
of the contested position, as well as damages owing to the alleged deliberate,
arbitrary and wrongful acts of both the public and private respondents.
Petitioner’s money claim allegedly arising
from his failure to assume the position of Director, BJMP and damages is untenable.
A public office is not a property within the
context of the due process guarantee of the Constitution. There is no such
thing as a vested interest in a public office, let alone an absolute right
to hold it. Except constitutional offices which provide for special immunity as regards salary and tenure, no one can be said to have any vested right in a public office or its
salary.[12] It is only when
salary has already been earned or accrued that said salary becomes private
property and entitled to the protection of due process.
The right to salary and other emoluments arising from public employment is based on one’s valid appointment or
election
to the office itself and accrues from the date of actual commencement of the
discharge of official duties. As may be recalled,
petitioner
Engaño,
albeit lacking in qualifications, was nonetheless appointed as Director of the
BJMP and appeared to have entered upon the performance of the duties of the position from
Neither is petitioner Engaño entitled to any damages. As it were, the records are bereft of any showing that either respondent Alit or Secretary Lina acted in a willful,
arbitrary, baseless, or wrongful manner, as Engaño alleges. It is obvious that both, in good faith,
believed that Engaño was unqualified for the contested position, as was subsequently found to be the case by the trial court and then by the
CA. Secretary Lina's assumption of the post in a
temporary capacity during the pendency of the quo
warranto suit was valid as it was, in fact, pursuant to the trial’s court order. Private respondent Alit, needless
to stress, was also well
within his rights in challenging petitioner's eligibility to the post.
Further, the two courts below were correct in asserting their respective jurisdictions over void
appointments. While an appointment
is an essentially discretionary executive
power, it is subject to the limitation that the appointee
should possess none of the disqualifications but all the qualifications
required by law.[15] Where the law prescribes certain qualifications for a given office or position, courts may determine whether the appointee has the requisite qualifications, absent which, his right or
title thereto may be declared void.[16]
WHEREFORE, this petition is
DENIED.
Cost against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO S .PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. with Associate Justices Godardo A. Jacinto and Mario L. Guarina III, concurring; Rollo, pp. 45-57.
[2]
[3]
See Annex “G” of the
Petition;
[4]
See Annex “H” of the
Petition;
[5]
Annex “K”
of the Petition;
[6]
Annex “N” of the Petition;
[7]
Ibid, p. 143.
[8]
Annex “P,” Petition, Rollo pp. 147-153.
[9]
Supra note 1.
[10] Garcia v.
Commission on Elections, 258 SCRA 754, G.R. No. 121139,
[11] Section 1, Rule 66, The Rules of Court.
[12] National Land Titles and Deeds
Registration Administration v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. 84301,
April 7, 1993, 221 SCRA 145.
[13]
[14] Ibid.
[15] Luego v. Civil Service
Commission, G.R. No. L-69137,
[16] Javellana v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142,