EMMANUEL A. DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. EMERSON S. CARLOS, RESPONDENT
[G.R. No. 194994, April
16, 2013 ]
FACTS:
In
2009, President Arroyo appointed Emmanuel de Castro as assistant general
manager for operations (AGMO) of the MMDA. On July 29, 2010, Executive
Secretary Paquito Ochoa issued Office of the President (OP) Memorandum Circular
No. 2 which states that “All non-Career
Executive Service Officials (non-CESO) occupying Career Executive Service (CES)
positions in all agencies of the executive branch shall remain in office until
October 31, 2010”.
Meanwhile,
Emerson Carlos was designated as OIC of the Office of the AGMO. Thereafter, the
name of petitioner was stricken off the MMDA payroll, and he was no longer paid
his salary beginning November 2010.
De
Castro demanded payment of his salary and reinstatement, but President Aquino
appointed Carlos as the new AGMO of the MMDA.
Hence, De Castro filed this instant petition of issuance of a writ of quo warranto under Rule 66 filed seeking to oust respondent Carlos from the position of (AGMO) of the MMDA.
Carlos
raises the issue of procedural infirmity in the direct recourse to the Supreme
Court by de Castro, who thereby failed to adhere to the doctrine of hierarchy
of courts.
ISSUE:
Whether
the quo warranto petition was properly filed.
RULING
No.
Although Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly
provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto,
and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of this Court is not exclusive
but is concurrent with that of the Court of Appeals and regional trial court
and does not give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. The
hierarchy of courts must be strictly observed.
Settled
is the rule that “the Supreme Court is a court of
last resort and must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions
assigned to it by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition.” A
disregard of the doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a petition.
A
direct invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction is allowed only when there are special
and important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a
petition. The rationale behind this policy arises from the necessity of
preventing (1) inordinate demands upon the time and attention of the Court,
which is better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction; and
(2) further overcrowding of the Court’s docket.
In
this case, petitioner justified his act of directly filing with this Court only
when he filed his Reply and after respondent had already raised the procedural
infirmity that may cause the outright dismissal of the present Petition.
Petitioner likewise cites stability in the civil service and protection of the
rights of civil servants as rationale for disregarding the hierarchy of courts.
Petitioner’s
excuses are not special and important circumstances that would allow a direct
recourse to this Court. More so, mere speculation and doubt to the exercise of
judicial discretion of the lower courts are not and cannot be valid
justifications to hurdle the hierarchy of courts. Thus, the Petition must be
dismissed.
Even
assuming that petitioner’s direct resort to this Court is permissible, the
Petition must still be dismissed for lack of merit.
“A
petition for quo warranto is a proceeding to determine the
right of a person to use or exercise a franchise or an office and to oust the
holder from the enjoyment, thereof, if the claim is not well-founded, or if his
right to enjoy the privilege has been forfeited.” Where the action is
filed by a private person, in his own name, he must prove that he is entitled
to the controverted position, otherwise, respondent has a right to the
undisturbed possession of the office.
The
controversy arose from the issuance of OP Memorandum Circular which applies to
all non-CESO’s occupying CES positions in all agencies of the executive branch.
Petitioner, being a non-CESO, avers that he is not covered by these OP
memoranda considering that the AGMO of the MMDA is a non-CES position.
In
order to settle the controversy, there is a need to determine the nature of the
contentious position of AGMO of the MMDA.
Executive
Order No. (E.O.) 292, otherwise known as The Revised Administrative Code of
1987, provides for two classifications of positions in the civil service:
career and non-career.
Career
service is characterized by the existence of security of tenure, as
contradistinguished from non-career service whose tenure is coterminous with
that of the appointing authority; or subject to the latter’s pleasure; or
limited to a period specified by law or to the duration of a particular project
for which purpose the appointment was made.
Applying
the foregoing distinction to the instant case, this Court finds that an AGMO
holds a career position, considering that the MMDA Charter specifically
provides that AGMs enjoy security of tenure – the core characteristic of a
career service, as distinguished from a non-career service position.
Likewise,
it is inconsequential that petitioner was allegedly replaced by another
non-CESO eligible. In a quo
warranto proceeding, the person suing must show that he has a clear
right to the office allegedly held unlawfully by another. Absent a showing of
that right, the lack of qualification or eligibility of the supposed usurper is
immaterial.
Wherefore
the petition is denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment