Tomawis v. Tabao-Caudang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Nora M. Tabao-Caudang (Caudang) was appointed Regional Director of the Office of Muslim Affairs (OMA) Region XII-B on September 1, 1987. Her appointment was permanent as CES positions were not yet classified. On February 4, 1993, she received notice that she had been replaced by Mr. Umbra Tomawis (Tomawis), who was appointed by the President. Caudang filed a quo warranto petition with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed for procedural defects. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) later declared Caudang's appointment permanent in Resolution No. 94-0014. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals (CA) granted Caudang's quo warranto petition, but later reversed itself due to forum shopping. This Court denied Caudang's appeal. The CSC denied Caudang's motion for execution of Resolution No. 94-0014, stating her separation was effected by the Chief Executive and thus reviewable only by the Supreme Court. Tomawis was removed in 1998 but re-appointed temporarily in 2000 as he lacked CES eligibility. On March 8, 2002, OMA Executive Director Habib Mujahab A. Hashim issued Office Order No. 0079, reinstating Caudang. The CSC denied Caudang's request for continuity of service from 1993 to 2002, citing the CA's Amended Decision. Tomawis filed an injunction and prohibition case against Caudang and Hashim before the RTC. Procedural History: The RTC initially ruled in favor of Tomawis, ordering Hashim and Caudang to cease and desist from enforcing Office Order No. 0079 and from occupying the position, respectively. Caudang filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. However, Caudang claimed she never received a copy of the denial order. The RTC then issued an Order dated January 7, 2004, setting aside its previous decision and resolution, acknowledging Caudang's administrative reinstatement. Tomawis filed a motion for execution of the September 15, 2003 decision, claiming it had become final and executory. Caudang opposed, asserting non-receipt of the denial order. The RTC granted the motion and issued a writ of execution on April 23, 2004. Caudang moved to quash the writ, which was denied. On June 3, 2004, Tomawis was re-installed. Caudang filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition with the CA, assailing the writ of execution. The Petition: The CA granted Caudang's petition, annulling and setting aside the RTC's decision, order, and writ of execution. The CA ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion, finding that the September 15, 2003 decision never attained finality due to Caudang's non-receipt of the denial order, and that the January 7, 2004 order was void for lack of hearing. The CA also noted that Tomawis' petition was a disguised quo warranto and he lacked legal standing as he held a temporary appointment. Tomawis filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in annulling and setting aside the decision of the RTC dated September 15, 2003. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the petitioner had no legal right to file the Special Civil Action No. 802-02. Whether the respondent committed multiple forum shopping.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals' Decision and Resolution. The Court held that the RTC's September 15, 2003 decision never attained finality because Caudang was not properly served a copy of the resolution denying her motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the writ of execution issued by the RTC was null and void. The Court also affirmed that Tomawis lacked the legal standing to file the injunction case, as his appointment was temporary and he had no clear legal right to the position. The claim of forum shopping was also dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the finality of the RTC's September 15, 2003 Decision: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the RTC's September 15, 2003 decision never attained finality. The rules on service by registered mail, as provided in Sections 9 and 10 of Rule 13 of the Rules of Court, require actual receipt by the addressee or, in cases of constructive service, conclusive proof that a first notice was duly sent by the postmaster and received by the addressee. In this case, there was no sufficient proof that Caudang actually received the December 15 resolution denying her motion for reconsideration, nor was there proof of receipt of a first notice. The envelope was marked "return to sender," negating the applicability of constructive notice. Without proper service, the decision could not attain finality, rendering the subsequent writ of execution void. On the issue of Tomawis' legal right to file the injunction case: The Court agreed with the CA that Tomawis had no clear legal right to institute the petition for injunction. The CA correctly characterized Tomawis' suit as a thinly disguised petition for quo warranto. Even if considered purely as an injunction case, Tomawis failed to demonstrate the existence of a right in esse or a right to be protected. His appointment as Regional Director was characterized as temporary because he lacked the requisite Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility. Temporary appointments do not confer security of tenure. Upon the issuance of Office Order No. 0079, which reinstated Caudang, Tomawis' right to the position ceased to exist. Therefore, the issuance of the injunctive writ by the RTC, in the absence of a clear legal right, constituted grave abuse of discretion. On the issue of forum shopping: The Court found no merit in Tomawis' claim of multiple forum shopping. While Caudang had previously filed quo warranto proceedings involving the same position, the present action was initiated by Tomawis himself through a petition for injunction to prevent the enforcement of Office Order No. 0079, which terminated his temporary appointment. The Court distinguished the cases based on the distinct appointments and factual circumstances. The previous quo warranto actions by Caudang were based on her 1987 appointment, whereas the current situation arose from her 2002 appointment. Therefore, the elements of litis pendentia or res judicata were not present, and the respondent was not guilty of forum shopping.
Main Doctrine
A writ of execution cannot be validly issued in the absence of a final and executory judgment or order. Service of resolutions by registered mail is complete only upon actual receipt by the addressee or after five days from receipt of the first notice from the postmaster, whichever is earlier. Constructive service requires conclusive proof of the postmaster's issuance of a first notice and its receipt by the addressee. A temporary appointment does not confer security of tenure, and an individual holding such an appointment lacks the legal standing to file a petition for injunction to retain the position.