Rosete v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Reino R. Rosete, Chief of Hospital of Olongapo City General Hospital, was summarily dismissed on November 20, 1985, by Mayor Richard J. Gordon for grave misconduct and other offenses. Petitioner questioned this dismissal, asserting lack of due process. The EDSA Revolution led to Gordon's ouster, and the OIC Mayor, Atty. Teddy C. Macapagal, reversed the dismissal on March 19, 1986, ordering Rosete to resume his duties. This Court dismissed Rosete's initial petition (G.R. No. 73449) as moot and academic due to his reinstatement. Procedural History: After Macapagal was succeeded by Ildefonso Arriola, Rosete was again directed to cease performing his duties, and another physician was appointed. Upon Gordon's re-election as Mayor, he issued a memorandum on February 8, 1988, affirming Rosete's earlier dismissal and instructing the City Treasurer to implement it, leading to Rosete's office being padlocked. Rosete filed a petition for mandamus (G.R. No. 82171) seeking reinstatement and back salaries. This case was referred to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City. Gordon's motions for inhibition and dismissal were denied by RTC Judge Bans. Gordon then filed a petition for certiorari/prohibition with the Court of Appeals (CA), which was dismissed. Meanwhile, Dr. Concordia A. Ligad and later Dr. Arturo E. Mendoza were appointed Chief of Hospital. Judge Bans granted Rosete's prayer for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction on July 31, 1990, ordering his return to office and payment of back salaries. The RTC denied the motion for reconsideration. Gordon, et al., filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, which annulled and set aside the RTC orders. Rosete filed the present petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner Rosete seeks to annul the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the CA erred in ruling that the status quo was that he was not holding office and that he could not claim a clear legal right to the position.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the status quo at the time of filing the petition for mandamus was that petitioner was not holding office as Chief of Hospital. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that petitioner cannot claim a clear legal right to the position of Chief of Hospital.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found merit in the petition. It ruled that the Court of Appeals erred in its determination of the status quo and in concluding that the petitioner could not claim a clear legal right to the position. The Court of Appeals' decision was nullified and set aside, and the orders of the Regional Trial Court were reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue regarding the status quo: The Supreme Court held that the status quo usually preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, and uncontested status preceding the controversy. The Court found that the subsequent appointments of Dr. Ligad and Dr. Mendoza could not be considered part of this status because they were made amidst an ongoing dispute and were not peaceable or uncontested. Petitioner Rosete had been reinstated by OIC Macapagal on March 20, 1986, and was performing his duties until his second illegal dismissal on February 8, 1988. Therefore, the last peaceable and uncontested status was when he was actually holding the office, which should be reckoned from his reinstatement on March 20, 1986. The Court emphasized that his prior dismissal could not be invoked to justify his second dismissal, especially since the first dismissal was reversed and judicially settled as moot and academic. On the second issue regarding the clear legal right to the position: The Supreme Court ruled that petitioner Rosete possessed a clear legal right to the position of Chief of Hospital. As a medical doctor appointed on September 1, 1971, he was entitled to the constitutional rights to due process and security of tenure. The Court reiterated that civil service employees cannot be removed or suspended except for just cause and in the manner provided by law. The Court found the respondents' claim that the position was 'primarily confidential' to be untenable, as this ground was not alleged in the formal charges or in previous pleadings and was raised as an afterthought. Furthermore, the Court noted that the summary dismissal under Section 40 of P.D. 807, under which petitioner was initially dismissed, had been repealed by R.A. No. 6654. Even if it were in force, the first dismissal was judicially settled, and the second dismissal was admittedly without prior notice and hearing, thus violating due process. The Court cited Tañala v. Legaspi and Floreza v. Ongpin to support the principle that an illegally dismissed employee is considered as not having left the office and is entitled to all rights and privileges. The Court also highlighted that the prior resolution in G.R. No. 73449, which dismissed the petition as moot and academic due to reinstatement, constituted res judicata on the issues of the illegality of the summary dismissal and the procedural irregularities.
Main Doctrine
The status quo to be preserved by a preliminary injunction is the last actual, peaceable, and uncontested status which preceded the actual controversy. Subsequent appointments cannot be deemed part of this status if they were made amidst an ongoing dispute or were themselves part of the controversy. A prior final judgment on the merits, under the principle of res judicata, bars relitigation of the same issues.