DIGEST/ KRIZABEL MARTINEZ/DR. ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON vs CA & DR. ALEJANDRO DE LA FUENTE

 

[ G.R. No. 101428, August 05, 1992 ]

DR. ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEDICAL CENTER CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND DR. ALEJANDRO S. DE LA FUENTE, RESPONDENTS

FACTS

Pursuant to Executive Order No. 119, reorganization of the various offices of the Ministry of Health commenced; existing offices were abolished, transfers of personnel effected. Dr. Alejandro S. de la Fuente, respondent, was the Chief of Clinics of the National Children's Hospital. Then, respondent received notice from the DOH that he would be re-appointed "Medical Specialist II." Considering this to be a demotion by no less than two ranks from his post as Chief of Clinics, respondent  filed a protest with the DOH Reorganization Board. When his protest was ignored, he brought his case to the Civil Service Commission. In the meantime "the duties and responsibilities pertaining to the position of Chief of Clinics were turned over to and were allowed to be exercised by Dr. Jose D. Merencilla, Jr."

The CSC declared the demotion/transfer of Dr. de la Fuente as null and void. The resolution became final since no motion for reconsideration nor was appeal submitted. After 3 months without any action from Dr.Vital-Gozon, the Medical Center Chief of the National Children's Hospital, respondent went to CSC and asked to enforce the judgment. However, he was advised to file a petition for mandamus since CSC had no coercive powers to enforce its final decisions/resolutions.

Respondent filed and a petition for mandamus in the Court of Appeals. After a month, he filed a supplemental/amended petition described as one for “quo warranto” aside from “mandamus”. Respondent alleged that he had "clear title" to the position in question in virtue of the final and executory judgment of the CSC; that even after the Commission's judgment had become final and executory and been communicated to Vital-Gozon, the latter allowed "Dr. Merencilla, Jr. as 'OIC Professional Service' to further usurp, intrude into and unlawfully hold and exercise the public office/position of petitioner.

CA ordered Dr. Vital-Gozon to comply with, obey and implement the resolution of CSC. But de la Fuente’s prayer for damages was denied because petitions for mandamus are not the vehicle nor is the court the forum for said claim. Respondent sought reconsideration and insisted that CA had competence to award damages in a mandamus action.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction, in a special civil action of mandamus against a public officer, to take cognizance of the matter of damages sought to be recovered from the defendant officer

RULING

Yes. Section 3 of Rule 65 authorized rendition of judgment in a mandamus action "commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendant.". The provision makes plain that the damages are an incident, or the result of, the defendant's wrongful act in failing and refusing to do the act required to be done.

Moreover, Section 4 of the same Rule 65 authorized the filing of the petition "in the Supreme Court, or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of an inferior court, or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in a Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) having jurisdiction thereof," as well as "in the Court of Appeals (whether or not) in aid of its appellate jurisdiction." Rule 66 of the Rules of Court similarly authorizes the recovery of damages in a quo warranto action against a corporate officer -- an action within the concurrent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals

An award of damages was and is also allowed in connection with the auxiliary writ of preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction or receivership which the Court of Appeals has the power to issue in common with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Courts, payable by the sureties of the bond given in support of the writ, upon seasonable application and summary hearing.