Sanchez v. Lastimoso
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Jimmy B. Sanchez and Salvador A. Meteoro, former constables in the Philippine Constabulary (PC), were discharged from service in 1989 and 1990, respectively, for alleged loss of service firearm and absence without leave. Although subsequently cleared of charges and applying for reinstatement, their applications were not acted upon prior to the integration of the PC into the Philippine National Police (PNP). Procedural History: In 1998, the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) issued resolutions indicating the absorption of certain ex-PC personnel into the PNP, including petitioners. Following a memorandum from the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to the Chief of the PNP, and with no action taken, petitioners filed a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC ruled in their favor, declaring a subsequent NAPOLCOM resolution recalling the absorption void. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, finding that petitioners had not established a clear legal right to be absorbed and that mandamus was not the proper remedy. The CA subsequently denied their motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. They raise issues concerning their clear legal right to be absorbed into the PNP, the validity of NAPOLCOM Resolution No. 99-061, and their cause of action for mandamus. The core of their argument hinges on the NAPOLCOM resolutions that seemingly affirmed their absorption into the PNP.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners have a clear legal right to be absorbed in the Philippine National Police and whether they have a cause of action for mandamus to compel the respondent to absorb them in the Philippine National Police. Whether NAPOLCOM Resolution No. 99-061 is void for being violative of R.A. 6975 and its implementing resolutions.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The June 18, 2003 Decision and the January 15, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether petitioners have a clear legal right to be absorbed in the Philippine National Police and a cause of action for mandamus: The Court reiterated that mandamus is employed only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. The issuance of absorption orders into the PNP was deemed a discretionary power, as the power to appoint PNP personnel is vested in the PNP regional director or the Chief of the PNP, not NAPOLCOM. The Court emphasized that the writ of mandamus can only issue when the applicant's legal right is clear and complete, which was not established by the petitioners. Furthermore, the absorption into the PNP was considered a new appointment, not a reinstatement, as the PC no longer exists. The Court cited Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners Association, Inc. to underscore that mandamus will not issue to enforce a right that is questionable or over which substantial doubt exists. On the issue of whether NAPOLCOM Resolution No. 99-061 is void: The Court found the trial court's declaration that NAPOLCOM Resolution No. 99-061 was void ab initio to be improper. The petition filed before the RTC impleaded only the Chief of the PNP, and NAPOLCOM, the entity that issued the resolution, was not impleaded as a party. As NAPOLCOM is a separate entity and an indispensable party, the trial court should have acquired jurisdiction over it. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act. The Court also noted that even if petitioners could derive a right from earlier NAPOLCOM issuances, their right would collapse with the issuance of Resolution No. 99-061, which recalled the approval of their absorption, rendering the mandamus petition moot. The Court cited the well-settled rule that courts will not resolve a moot question.
Main Doctrine
The writ of mandamus is only compellable to enforce a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. Furthermore, the issuance of absorption orders into the Philippine National Police involves a discretionary power, and thus, cannot be compelled by mandamus. The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void.