Marcelo v. Tantuico, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Teofilo I. Marcelo, a government employee since 1949 and Corporate Auditor of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) since January 1, 1974, was arrested on March 10, 1974, for "Malversation thru Falsification of Public Documents" and "Violation of the Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act." He was subsequently included in the list of government personnel purged/separated/ousted on September 21, 1975. His appeal to the Committee on Appeals, Office of the President, was deferred pending termination of his criminal cases. The cases were transferred from the Military Tribunal to the Office of the City Fiscal of Quezon City, then to the Tanodbayan, which dismissed the charges on April 22, 1980, due to witness retractions, but recommended perjury cases against the retracting witnesses. Petitioner requested reinstatement on August 31, 1981. Procedural History: The Office of the President, through the Deputy Presidential Executive Assistant, denied petitioner's request on January 27, 1982, citing the unfavorable indorsement of the Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA). The COA's Second Indorsement stated a policy against favorable consideration for reinstatement of COA personnel purged in the September 21, 1975 'purge,' and further noted that old positions were abolished under the reorganization of COA pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 898. Petitioner had already secured clearances for retirement effective September 21, 1975. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with mandatory injunction, seeking reinstatement to his former position and payment of back salaries and benefits, raising the legality of his summary removal and whether respondents could be compelled by mandamus to reinstate him.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner's summary removal from office as Corporate Auditor of the Philippine Coconut Authority was legal. Whether respondents can be compelled by mandamus to reinstate petitioner and to pay him his salaries, allowances, and other emoluments and benefits from the date he was dismissed from the service.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. Mandamus will not lie to compel the respondents to reinstate the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the legality of the summary removal: The Court found the petitioner's summary dismissal to be valid and justified under Section 3(a) of P.D. No. 6, which allows immediate removal or dismissal without formal investigation when the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong. At the time of his dismissal, a serious criminal case for malversation, falsification, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act was pending against him, involving a substantial amount and a conspiracy to defraud through fictitious dealers. The Court emphasized that the evidence of guilt was strong, as evidenced by the sworn statements of twelve witnesses, and that subsequent exoneration due to witness retraction does not negate the strength of the evidence at the time of dismissal. The Court cited Alcolala vs. Tantuico, Jr., 83 SCRA 789, in support of the principle that summary dismissal is permissible under such circumstances. On whether respondents can be compelled by mandamus to reinstate: The Court ruled that mandamus will not lie to compel reinstatement. Firstly, the petitioner's request for reinstatement was denied by the Acting Chairman of the COA based on policy and the abolition of old positions under the reorganization of COA pursuant to P.D. No. 898. It is a consistent holding that when an office is validly abolished, the incumbent cannot be placed by the court in a newly created office; this is a matter for the appointing power's discretion. Secondly, mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not to enforce a right that rests upon the sound discretion of public officials, as held in PAL Employees' Association vs. Philippine Air Lines, 111 SCRA 215. The Court reiterated that mandamus requires a clear and certain right, which was absent in this case, as petitioner failed to show a clear right to demand reinstatement and a corresponding legal duty on the respondents to reinstate him, citing Taboy vs. Court of Appeals, 105 SCRA 758.
Main Doctrine
Mandamus will not lie to compel reinstatement when the position has been validly abolished due to reorganization, as reinstatement in such cases rests upon the sound discretion of the appointing power and is not a ministerial duty. Furthermore, summary dismissal is valid under P.D. No. 6 when the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong at the time of dismissal, even if the employee is subsequently exonerated.