Soriano v. Ancheta
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Amado G. Soriano and Rafael B. Garcia were dismissed from their positions as Supervising Revenue Examiner II and Supervising Revenue Examiner III, respectively, in the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 1975 as part of a government reform program to purge undesirable personnel. At the time of their separation, neither petitioner had any pending administrative or criminal cases against them. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners initially filed petitions for reinstatement with the Appeals Committee in the Office of the President, but the committee could not act due to time constraints. They later revived their petitions, and on May 19, 1979, Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo C. Clave, by authority of the President, ordered their reinstatement to their former or equivalent positions. A motion for reconsideration by the Minister of Finance was denied on January 14, 1980. Despite these decisions, Commissioner Ruben B. Ancheta denied their requests for reinstatement in April 1981, citing a review of their records. This denial prompted the filing of the instant petition. 3. The Petition: This is a petition for mandamus and other relief, filed on August 4, 1981, seeking to compel the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to reinstate the petitioners to their former positions as directed by the May 19, 1979 decision. The petitioners challenge the efficacy of a memorandum dated May 22, 1980, from the Minister of Finance to the President, which recommended against reinstatements and was noted by the President, arguing it was ante-dated and that the President was not fully informed. The Supreme Court, after granting due course, ultimately dismissed the petition, finding that the petitioners had not shown a clear entitlement to the remedy invoked and that the Clave decision had been effectively revoked by the President's directive.
Issue(s)
Whether the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has a ministerial duty to reinstate the petitioners based on the decision of the Presidential Executive Assistant. Whether the President's directive on the memorandum effectively revoked the earlier reinstatement order.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The Court held that the petitioners have not shown clear entitlement to the remedy of mandamus. The decision of the Presidential Executive Assistant ordering reinstatement was effectively revoked by the President's directive on the memorandum, and since there was no showing that the President personally signed an order reinstating them, the respondent Commissioner had no ministerial duty to reinstate them.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the Commissioner of Internal Revenue has a ministerial duty to reinstate the petitioners based on the decision of the Presidential Executive Assistant: The Court found that the petitioners had not shown a clear entitlement to the remedy of mandamus. While mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, it does not apply to discretionary acts. The Court acknowledged the decision of Presidential Executive Assistant Clave ordering reinstatement, but this was subject to subsequent directives. The existence of a memorandum from the President, dated May 22, 1980, which recommended that no reinstatement be ordered for those purged from the BIR and that existing reinstatement orders be revoked except court orders, was crucial. The President's handwritten approval on this memorandum, stating "Approved—Hold any action on reinstatement orders from my office not signed by me. All cases should be reviewed on the merits of each case," indicated a clear intent to review and potentially countermand prior reinstatement orders. Therefore, the Commissioner's duty to reinstate was not purely ministerial if the prior order had been validly revoked or superseded. On Whether the President's directive on the memorandum effectively revoked the earlier reinstatement order: The Court concluded that the Clave decision in favor of the petitioners had been revoked by the President's directive on the memorandum. The petitioners' contention that the memorandum was ante-dated was unsupported by evidence, and the presumption of regularity in dating writings was applied. The Court also clarified that the President was indeed informed of the Clave decision, as the memorandum itself discussed the issue of reinstatement orders being given due course by the Presidential Executive Assistant on the ground of non-existence of administrative cases. The President's directive clearly indicated a policy to hold action on reinstatement orders not personally signed by him and to review all cases on their merits. This directive effectively superseded the earlier reinstatement order issued by the Presidential Executive Assistant, thereby revoking it. Without a new order signed by the President reinstating them, the respondent Commissioner had no ministerial duty to carry out the earlier, now revoked, reinstatement.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for mandamus is a proper remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty. However, it will not issue the writ if the duty is discretionary or if the order sought to be enforced has been validly revoked. In this case, the President's directive to hold action on reinstatement orders not signed by him, and to review all cases on their merits, effectively revoked the earlier reinstatement order issued by the Presidential Executive Assistant. Consequently, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue had no ministerial duty to reinstate the petitioners.