Paloma v. Mora
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Nilo Paloma was appointed General Manager of the Palompon, Leyte Water District in 1993. His services were subsequently terminated by Resolution No. 8-95, passed by respondents as Chairman and members of the Board of the Palompon, Leyte Water District, who also designated Valentino Sevilla as Officer-in-Charge. Petitioner contended that his dismissal was a "capricious and arbitrary act" and a denial of due process, as he was not notified nor given an opportunity to explain the grounds for his termination. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on January 11, 1996, seeking to be reinstated. The RTC dismissed the petition on March 12, 1996, for being prematurely filed, a decision affirmed by its Order on June 28, 1996. Concurrently, petitioner filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for illegal dismissal. The CSC, on November 6, 1996, dismissed petitioner's complaint, exonerating the respondents. The Court of Appeals, in a Decision dated November 15, 2002, affirmed the RTC's dismissal, and a subsequent Resolution on April 1, 2003, denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals' decision via a petition for review on certiorari. He argues that the appellate court erred in affirming the RTC's dismissal, contending that mandamus may lie to compel the performance of a discretionary duty when due process is violated, and that he was not required to exhaust administrative remedies. Respondents counter that petitioner engaged in forum shopping, that the case is moot due to the dissolution of the Water District, and that petitioner's appointment was at the pleasure of the Board under Presidential Decree No. 198, Section 23.
Issue(s)
Whether mandamus will lie to compel the Board of Directors of the Palompon, Leyte Water District to reinstate the General Manager. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC's dismissal of the petition for mandamus. Whether the Civil Service Commission has primary jurisdiction over the case for illegal dismissal of the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether mandamus will lie to compel reinstatement: Mandamus is a writ that compels the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. In this case, Section 23 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 198, as amended by P.D. No. 768, explicitly states that the General Manager of a Water District shall serve at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. This provision grants the Board discretionary power to remove the General Manager. An appointment held at the pleasure of the appointing power is temporary and co-extensive with the Board's desire. Therefore, when the Board opts to replace the incumbent, it is not a removal but an expiration of the term, and no prior notice or hearing is required. The protection afforded by civil service rules on removal for cause does not apply when the position is held at the pleasure of the appointing power. Thus, mandamus cannot be used to compel reinstatement in such a situation, as it would control the exercise of discretion vested in the Board. The Court reiterated that the wisdom of such a law is a legislative concern, not a judicial one. On whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in affirming the RTC's dismissal: The Court of Appeals did not commit reversible error. The RTC correctly dismissed the petition for mandamus because the General Manager serves at the pleasure of the Board, making the termination a matter of discretion, not a violation of a ministerial duty that mandamus could compel. Furthermore, the Court noted that the subsequent amendment to P.D. No. 198 by Republic Act No. 9286, which requires cause and due process for removal, is of prospective application and does not retroact to the petitioner's termination. Applying RA 9286 retroactively would divest the respondents of rights vested under the prevailing law at the time of the termination. The Court also considered that the Palompon, Leyte Water District was dissolved and absorbed by the municipal government, potentially rendering the case moot. On whether the Civil Service Commission has primary jurisdiction over the case for illegal dismissal: The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies, meaning courts cannot resolve controversies within the jurisdiction of an administrative tribunal, especially those requiring special knowledge and discretion. Water districts are government instrumentalities, and their employees belong to the civil service, governed by Civil Service Law and Regulations. The Civil Service Commission (CSC), as the central personnel agency, is better equipped to handle cases involving employment status in the civil service due to its expertise. Therefore, the RTC's dismissal of the mandamus petition for being prematurely filed, considering the existence of an administrative remedy with the CSC, was proper. The CSC had already ruled on the petitioner's complaint for illegal dismissal, dismissing it for lack of prima facie case, further supporting the procedural correctness of the lower courts' decisions.
Main Doctrine
Mandamus will not lie to compel the reinstatement of a General Manager of a Water District whose appointment is governed by P.D. No. 198, as amended, which provides that said officer serves at the pleasure of the Board of Directors, as this involves a discretionary power. Furthermore, cases involving the employment status of civil service employees fall under the primary jurisdiction of administrative bodies like the Civil Service Commission.