Collantes v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioner Nelson Collantes was appointed Undersecretary for Peace and Order of the DILG and later Undersecretary for Civilian Relations of the DND. He claims he was asked to relinquish his DILG post and subsequently resigned from the DND position, believing he would be given another assignment. However, he was terminated from service and not given a new post, despite being promoted to CESO Rank I. He sought assistance from the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) regarding his termination, asserting his right to security of tenure as a CESO. 2. Procedural History: Collantes filed a Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals (CA), seeking nullification of the appointment of his successor and reinstatement, or a position of equivalent rank. The CA dismissed his petition, ruling he had effectively resigned. Meanwhile, the CSC, acting on Collantes' request, issued a resolution finding his relief illegal and ordering his reinstatement with backwages. Collantes withdrew his appeal to the Supreme Court (SC) regarding the CA decision and moved for the execution of the CSC resolution. The DND requested the CSC to revisit its resolution due to conflict with the final CA decision. Consequently, the CSC reversed its earlier resolution, deeming Collantes effectively resigned. Collantes then filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA challenging the CSC's reversal. The CA dismissed this petition, upholding the CSC's reversed resolution. Collantes appealed this dismissal to the SC. 3. The Petition: This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside the Court of Appeals' decision and resolution that upheld the Civil Service Commission's reversal of its own prior ruling. Collantes argues that the CSC's initial resolution, finding him illegally dismissed and granting him relief, had become final and executory, and that the CSC gravely abused its discretion in reversing it. Due to his subsequent appointment as General Manager of the Philippine Retirement Authority, his prayer is now limited to seeking backwages and benefits from his alleged dismissal date to his new appointment date. The core issue is which of two conflicting final and executory decisions should prevail: the CSC's initial ruling in his favor or the CA's ruling that he effectively resigned.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that its decision in CA-G.R. SP No. 62874 is a bar to implementing the final and executory judgment of the Civil Service Commission dated August 14, 2001. Whether the Civil Service Commission committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it reversed its own decision which had become final and executory, in violation of petitioner's right to due process, and whether the petitioner engaged in forum shopping and res judicata. Whether the Civil Service Commission erred in upholding the resolution that petitioner could be removed from his position without a concomitant transfer to an equivalent position, which is tantamount to constructive dismissal and a violation of his right to security of tenure as a Career Executive Service Eligible.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court upholds the decision of the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the petition for certiorari and affirmed the Civil Service Commission's Resolution No. 021482, declaring that Nelson P. Collantes is deemed effectively resigned from his position as Undersecretary of the Department of National Defense.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of conflicting final and executory decisions: The Court acknowledged the existence of two conflicting final and executory decisions: the CSC Resolution of August 13, 2001, and the Court of Appeals Decision of August 30, 2001. The Court considered three potential solutions: allowing parties to assert claims anew, giving precedence to the later judgment, or giving precedence to the judgment of the court of last resort. It opted to resolve the merits of the case anew, finding this to be the most appropriate recourse given that all facts and arguments were before the Court, and to avoid further delay. The Court noted that the finality of the CSC Resolution stemmed from the failure to file a motion for reconsideration or appeal, while the finality of the Court of Appeals Decision was due to the petitioner's withdrawal of his appeal to the Supreme Court. On the issue of grave abuse of discretion, forum shopping and res judicata: The Court found that the petitioner engaged in forum shopping by pursuing parallel remedies before the CSC and the Court of Appeals. Despite his claims of not filing two separate actions, the petitioner was aware that his request to the Career Executive Service Board was referred to the CSC for action while his petition for quo warranto and mandamus was pending before the Court of Appeals. This knowledge, coupled with his subsequent abandonment of the unfavorable forum (Court of Appeals) and pursuit of execution in the favorable one (CSC), constituted forum shopping and a violation of his certification against forum shopping. The Court also noted that the issues in both cases were identical, leading to the possibility of res judicata. On the issue of constructive dismissal and security of tenure: The Court reiterated that security of tenure for members of the Career Executive Service (CES) pertains to rank, not to a specific position. A CESO may be transferred or reassigned without losing rank. However, the Court clarified that a CESO's rank is deactivated upon separation from government service, including resignation from a position. The Court found that Collantes effectively resigned from his position as Undersecretary by his own deliberate act of relinquishing the post. The Court emphasized that a courtesy resignation, while perhaps motivated by deference, is still a resignation and does not create an obligation for the President to appoint the individual to another position. Any express promise of another position would be void as it would derogate the discretion of the appointing power and its object is outside the commerce of man. Therefore, Collantes was not constructively dismissed but had effectively resigned.
Main Doctrine
Where two irreconcilably conflicting decisions have attained finality, the Court may either allow parties to assert claims anew or give precedence to the decision rendered by the court of last resort. In this case, the Court opted to resolve the merits anew, ultimately upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals which dismissed the petition for quo warranto and mandamus, thereby deeming the petitioner to have effectively resigned from his position.