Docena v. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the rightful occupant of a vacant seat in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar. Following the death of elected member Luis B. Capito, two individuals, Agustin B. Docena and Socrates B. Alar, were successively appointed to fill the vacancy by the Secretary of Local Government, leading to conflicting claims over the position. 2. Procedural History: Agustin B. Docena was initially appointed on November 19, 1990, and assumed office. Subsequently, Socrates B. Alar was appointed on November 27, 1990. The Secretary of Local Government recalled Alar's appointment on December 19, 1990, reinstating Docena's claim. However, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar passed resolutions recognizing Alar. In a further turn, the Secretary of Local Government issued a memorandum on February 20, 1991, recalling Docena's appointment and directing him to turn over the office to Alar. 3. The Petition: Agustin B. Docena filed a petition for mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to compel the respondents to recognize and admit him as the lawfully appointed member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar. He argued that his initial appointment was permanent and that he had acquired security of tenure, which could not be revoked without due process. The petition also sought damages for the respondents' refusal to recognize his position. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order pending resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether the Sangguniang Panlalawigan has the authority to review and reject the appointment made by the Secretary of Local Government. Whether the recall of Agustin B. Docena's appointment was valid. Whether the petition for mandamus is the proper remedy.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. Petitioner Agustin B. Docena is declared the lawfully appointed member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Eastern Samar, which is directed to admit or reinstate him as such. The temporary restraining order dated January 31, 1991, is LIFTED. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the authority of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan to review appointments: The respondents, as a local legislative body, have no authority to review, reject, or rule on the validity of appointments made by the Secretary of Local Government, who is acting as the alter ego of the President. Faced with a strictly legal question regarding conflicting claims to an office, the SPES should have reserved its judgment and left the matter to the courts of justice to decide. Their action in rejecting petitioner's claim despite its apparent merit, influenced by political rather than legal considerations, was an overreach of their competence. The Court, in its discretion, can treat the petition as one for quo warranto if it deems it appropriate, and in this case, it found that Docena proved his right to the office. On the validity of the recall of Agustin B. Docena's appointment: Docena's appointment on November 19, 1990, was intended to fill a permanent vacancy and was accepted by him, leading to his assumption of office. This established his security of tenure. Consequently, his appointment could not be arbitrarily recalled or superseded to accommodate Alar, especially without any stated reason and in apparent disregard of due process. The recall order issued on February 20, 1991, without hearing and without justification, was invalid. The Court noted the inconsistency in the respondents' stance, questioning the recall of Alar's appointment for lack of hearing while not similarly challenging the recall of Docena's appointment, despite both being issued without prior hearing. The appointment, being permanent in nature for the unexpired term, could only be revoked for causes prescribed by law and through the proper procedure, which were not followed. On the propriety of the remedy of mandamus: While respondents argued that quo warranto was the proper remedy to challenge Alar's title, the primary purpose of the petition was to compel the SPES to recognize and admit Docena by virtue of his valid appointment. Mandamus is employed to compel the performance of a ministerial duty to which the petitioner is entitled. The SPES's duty to recognize and admit a lawfully appointed member, based on an appointment from the DLG Secretary, was ministerial. They had no discretion to review the validity of the Secretary's decision. Even if quo warranto were considered the more appropriate remedy, the Court has the discretion to treat the present petition as such, finding that it complied with the necessary requirements and that Docena had proven his title to the office.
Main Doctrine
An appointment to fill a permanent vacancy in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, once accepted and acted upon by the appointee, vests security of tenure in the appointee, and such appointment cannot be arbitrarily recalled or superseded without due process, especially when the recall is done without stated reason and appears to be politically motivated.