Gorospe v. Secretary of Public Works and Communications
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Vicente E. Gorospe, a letter carrier in the Bureau of Posts, was found guilty of grave misconduct for the loss of a check and ordered dropped from the service as of September 26, 1950, by the Commissioner of Civil Service. This dismissal was without prejudice to his employment if a suitable position became available and the appointing officer was apprised of the case. Procedural History: Gorospe requested reinstatement and resumed work as a clerk on April 26, 1951, with a salary of P1,320 per annum. An appointment was extended to him, which was sent to the Bureau of Civil Service. However, on January 13, 1954, his services were terminated effective January 31, 1954, because his appointment had not been approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, who had previously ordered his dismissal. Gorospe's subsequent requests for reconsideration were denied. The Petition: Gorospe filed a petition for mandamus praying for his reinstatement and for the removal of the notation that his appointment expired on January 31, 1954. The respondents argued that his reinstatement was conditional, that the appointment was withdrawn upon notification of his administrative cases, and that mandamus would not lie under the circumstances.
Issue(s)
Whether the writ of mandamus may be issued to compel the reinstatement of petitioner Vicente E. Gorospe to the service. Whether the appointment extended to petitioner Gorospe as clerk was valid and could no longer be recalled.
Ruling
The petition for mandamus was dismissed. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that mandamus will not lie to compel the reinstatement of an employee who has been previously dismissed for cause after proper investigation. Furthermore, mandamus is not available when reinstatement is contingent upon the availability of a suitable position and after the appointing officer has been informed of a prior dismissal for misconduct. The records clearly showed that Gorospe was dismissed for grave misconduct, and his subsequent appointment was not yet approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service, making his situation fall outside the purview of mandamus. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that an appointment reinstating an employee previously dismissed for grave misconduct is not final or complete until it has been submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Civil Service. The Commissioner has the discretion to refuse to certify or attest an appointment if the proposed appointee has been dismissed from the service for misconduct. In this case, the appointment was forwarded to the Commissioner of Civil Service, who did not attest it and instead indicated that it could be withdrawn by the appointing officer. Therefore, the recall of the appointment by the appointing officer was a valid exercise of discretion, especially given the petitioner's prior dismissal for grave misconduct and the policy to remove employees involved in anomalies.
Main Doctrine
An appointment that seeks to reinstate an employee previously dismissed for grave misconduct requires the approval of the Commissioner of Civil Service. Without such approval, the appointment remains incomplete and may be withdrawn by the appointing officer. Mandamus will not lie to compel reinstatement if the employee was dismissed for cause after proper investigation, or if reinstatement is contingent upon the availability of a suitable position and awareness of prior misconduct.