Canonizado v. Aguirre
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners sought reconsideration of the Court's decision declaring Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8551 (RA 8551) unconstitutional for violating their right to security of tenure, and ordering their reinstatement as Commissioners of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) with full backwages. Respondents, through the Solicitor General, insisted that petitioner Alexis C. Canonizado abandoned his claim for reinstatement to NAPOLCOM by accepting the position of Inspector General of the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) of the Philippine National Police (PNP), arguing the offices were incompatible. Procedural History: The Supreme Court initially ruled in its January 25, 2000 decision that Section 8 of RA 8551 was unconstitutional and ordered the reinstatement of petitioners. This resolution addresses the respondents' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Respondents sought reconsideration of the Court's decision, primarily arguing that Canonizado's acceptance of the Inspector General position constituted abandonment of his NAPOLCOM Commissioner post due to incompatibility.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioner Alexis C. Canonizado abandoned his claim for reinstatement to the NAPOLCOM by accepting the position of Inspector General of the IAS-PNP. Whether the rule on incompatibility of offices applies to Canonizado's situation. Whether Jose Percival L. Adiong is entitled to reinstatement to the NAPOLCOM. Whether respondents Magahum and Factoran should have been impleaded as parties to the case. Whether the ruling in Mayor v. Macaraig should be applied to the present case.
Ruling
The motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Court clarified that its January 25, 2000 decision mandates the reinstatement of Jose Percival L. Adiong to the NAPOLCOM, along with the petitioners, pursuant to his appointment under Republic Act No. 6975 (RA 6975).
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Canonizado abandoned his claim for reinstatement: The Court held that Canonizado did not abandon his claim for reinstatement to the NAPOLCOM. Abandonment requires an intention to abandon and an overt act to carry it into effect. Canonizado was compelled to leave his NAPOLCOM post by Section 8 of RA 8551, which was later declared unconstitutional. His subsequent appointment as Inspector General was accepted during the pendency of the case assailing his removal, indicating no willful desire to abandon his original office. The Court cited Tan v. Gimenez and Gonzales v. Hernandez, where accepting other employment during the pendency of an appeal from an illegal dismissal was not considered abandonment, as it was necessary for sustenance and did not involve simultaneous discharge of duties. On the applicability of the incompatibility of offices rule: The Court ruled that the rule on incompatibility of offices did not apply. While the positions of NAPOLCOM Commissioner and Inspector General are indeed incompatible, this rule applies when one person attempts to discharge the duties of both offices simultaneously. In Canonizado's case, he was removed from his NAPOLCOM position by an unconstitutional law before he assumed the Inspector General role. Therefore, he never discharged the functions of both offices concurrently. The incompatibility rule requires the actual performance of duties of both offices, which did not occur here. On Adiong's entitlement to reinstatement: The Court clarified that Jose Percival L. Adiong is entitled to reinstatement. Since Section 8 of RA 8551 was declared unconstitutional, all acts done pursuant to it are void, including the removal of petitioners and Adiong from NAPOLCOM and the appointment of new commissioners. Adiong's appointment under RA 8551 was a legal nullity. However, he should be permitted to enjoy the remainder of his term under RA 6975. Thus, all Commissioners appointed under RA 8551 must be removed to make way for the reinstatement of petitioners and Adiong under his original appointment. On the non-impleading of Magahum and Factoran: The Court disagreed with the respondents' contention that Magahum and Factoran should have been impleaded. The primary issue was the constitutionality of RA 8551, and the consequence of declaring Section 8 unconstitutional was the removal of all commissioners appointed thereunder. The appointments of Magahum and Factoran under RA 8551 were legal nullities. They were appointed after the petition was filed, and if they wished to defend their appointments, they could have intervened. Their failure to intervene meant they were willing to be bound by the Court's decision. The respondents' belated insistence on this issue after the Court's decision was unfavorable was also noted. On the application of the Mayor v. Macaraig ruling: The Court denied the respondents' prayer to apply the ruling in Mayor v. Macaraig. The crucial distinction was that the petitioners in the present case did not make an alternative prayer for payment of salaries and emoluments in lieu of reinstatement, unlike in Mayor. The general prayer for "such other reliefs just and equitable" was consistent with their specific prayer for reinstatement, not an alternative to it.
Main Doctrine
Accepting a new position during the pendency of a case assailing the constitutionality of one's removal from a previous office does not constitute abandonment of the original office, especially when the removal was due to an unconstitutional law and the new position was accepted to continue serving the country or to provide for oneself and family. The rule on incompatibility of offices does not apply if the duties of both offices were not discharged simultaneously.