Solivio v. Arellano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Manuel R. Solivio was removed from his position as Chief of Police of Cadiz on May 30, 1955. This Court, in prior decisions (G.R. Nos. L-10535 and L-9124), ordered his reinstatement. Pursuant to a July 6, 1957 order from respondent Judge Arellano, Mayor Heracleo Villacin reinstated Solivio on July 9, 1957. However, on July 10, 1957, Mayor Villacin filed administrative charges against Solivio under Republic Act No. 557 and suspended him. Procedural History: Solivio moved to lift the suspension, and on July 20, 1957, Judge Arellano ordered his reinstatement again, "without prejudice to the continuation of the administrative charges." Mayor Villacin filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition (G.R. No. L-12590) with this Court, which granted an injunction, restraining the enforcement of the July 20, 1957 order. Subsequently, the municipal council of Cadiz, on December 7, 1957, found Solivio guilty of the administrative charges and ordered his dismissal. This decision was affirmed by the Commissioner of Civil Service on February 13, 1959. Meanwhile, on January 30, 1959, this Court denied Mayor Villacin's petition in G.R. No. L-12590, upholding the July 20, 1957 order. Solivio then moved for execution of the July 6, 1957 order. The Provincial Fiscal moved to quash the writ of execution, arguing that the July 6, 1957 order had been complied with and the July 20, 1957 order was academic due to Solivio's dismissal. Respondent Judge Arellano granted the motion to quash. Solivio moved for reconsideration, which was denied, leading to the instant petition. The Petition: Petitioner Solivio sought to set aside the orders of respondent Judge Arellano, commanding him to issue a writ of execution reinstating Solivio, and prohibiting the enforcement of the dismissal order. He also prayed for a preliminary mandatory injunction for immediate reinstatement.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge erred in quashing the writ of execution. Whether the order of reinstatement dated July 20, 1957, could still be enforced despite the subsequent dismissal of the petitioner in the administrative case. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement despite his dismissal from service.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The writ prayed for is denied, without pronouncement as to costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the enforceability of the July 20, 1957 order: The Court held that the order of reinstatement dated July 6, 1957, had become functus officio upon its implementation on July 9, 1957, when petitioner Solivio assumed his duties. His subsequent suspension on July 10, 1957, stemmed from new administrative charges filed against him under Republic Act No. 557. While the order of July 20, 1957, lifting the suspension was upheld by this Court in G.R. No. L-12590, it was expressly issued "without prejudice to the continuation of the administrative charges." Since these charges were duly investigated and petitioner was found guilty and dismissed, the order lifting the suspension became purely academic. To order reinstatement now would effectively override the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service, who acted within his jurisdiction. The validity of the administrative investigation itself was not questioned. On the petitioner's entitlement to reinstatement: The Court found that the petitioner's right to reinstatement, as previously upheld, was limited to the period until July 9, 1957, when he was reinstated. His subsequent dismissal from service in the administrative case, affirmed by the Commissioner of Civil Service, extinguished any further claim to reinstatement. The Court noted that the petitioner's "long odyssey in the several litigations" did uphold his right to the office and emoluments up to July 9, 1957, and the municipality was ready to pay his back salaries for that period. Therefore, ordering reinstatement would be contrary to the administrative findings and the established jurisprudence regarding the finality of administrative decisions. On the respondent Judge's order quashing the writ of execution: The respondent Judge correctly quashed the writ of execution. The writ, as issued, referred to the order of July 6, 1957, which had already been complied with. If it was intended to refer to the order of July 20, 1957, that order had become academic due to the petitioner's dismissal in the administrative case. The fiscal's motion to quash was based on valid grounds, as the issue of reinstatement pending administrative investigation had been rendered moot by the final dismissal of the petitioner. The Court reiterated that it could not override the decision of the Commissioner of Civil Service, which was rendered in the exercise of his jurisdiction.
Main Doctrine
An order of reinstatement, once implemented and complied with, becomes functus officio. Subsequent administrative charges and findings of guilt render the issue of lifting a suspension pending investigation purely academic, especially when the reinstatement order was issued without prejudice to the continuation of such charges.