Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners were employees of the City Government of Dumaguete who received promotional appointments from outgoing City Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo, Jr. shortly before the end of his term in June 2001. Upon the assumption of office by the new City Mayor, Agustin Perdices, he announced that he would not recognize these appointments. Consequently, City Administrator Dominador Dumalag, Jr. issued a memorandum directing the City Treasurer to refrain from disbursing salaries to those with promotional appointments. Several petitioners, who were on casual or job order status, were not paid their salaries for June and July 2001, some were told not to report for work, and their names were removed from the city's employee list. Procedural History: In response to these actions, the petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus with Injunction and Damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) on August 1, 2001. Concurrently, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Field Office, citing violations of CSC Resolution No. 010988 regarding mass appointments by outgoing officials, invalidated and revoked the petitioners' appointments. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the CSC Regional Office and the CSC Proper. The petitioners appealed these decisions through various administrative and judicial levels, including the Court of Appeals (CA) and this Court in related cases (G.R. No. 168484 and G.R. No. 181559). The RTC, after initially issuing a preliminary injunction, later lifted it and eventually dismissed the petitioners' main petition for mandamus and damages, finding their right to the positions and benefits unclear pending resolution of the validity of their appointments by higher courts. The RTC's decision was affirmed by this Court. The Petition: This petition, denominated as a "Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended," assails the RTC's Decision dated March 27, 2007, and Order dated April 26, 2007, which dismissed the petitioners' claims for mandamus and damages. The petitioners argue that the RTC's ruling that their right to their positions was unclear is contrary to law, and that the RTC erred in denying their claims for damages and failing to find bad faith on the part of respondent Mayor Perdices. The Court, however, treats the petition as a Petition for Review under Rule 45, noting that one of the issues raised involves a question of fact. The Court ultimately denies the petition, holding that mandamus will not lie as the petitioners' right to salaries and emoluments is not clearly established pending the resolution of the validity of their appointments, and that there is no sufficient basis for awarding moral or exemplary damages due to the lack of proven bad faith and the fact that the CSC's actions, not the Mayor's, were the proximate cause of the petitioners' predicament. The Court also finds no forum shopping.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC erred in holding that petitioners' right to their respective positions is still unclear, thus barring a writ of mandamus for their salaries and emoluments. Whether the RTC erred in holding that petitioners are not entitled to damages due to failure to prove bad faith on the part of respondent City Mayor Perdices. Whether the petitioners engaged in forum shopping.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision and Order of the RTC. The Court held that mandamus would not lie as petitioners' right to salaries was not clearly established, and their claims for damages were premature.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Mandamus for salaries: The Court reiterated that mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a ministerial duty and requires a clear legal right. Petitioners' appointments were invalidated by the CSC for violating civil service law (CSC Resolution No. 010988). While generally, appointees are entitled to salaries pending appeal of disapproved appointments, this rule applies when disapproval is not due to a violation of civil service law. Since the disapproval here was based on such violations, the appointing authority, former Mayor Remollo, would be personally liable for salaries, not the City Government. Furthermore, the CSC Proper affirmed the disapproval, and the validity of these appointments was still pending before the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 181559. Thus, petitioners' right to salaries from the City Government was not clearly established, making mandamus inappropriate. The Court also noted that the City had already paid salaries until September 27, 2001, and further payment was contingent on the final resolution of the validity of appointments. On the issue of Damages: The Court found no basis for awarding moral and exemplary damages. Moral damages require proof of bad faith, which was not sufficiently established. Mayor Perdices' announcement that he would not honor the appointments was not the proximate cause of petitioners' suffering; rather, it was the CSC's invalidation of their appointments. His subsequent appointments to fill some of the positions were within his discretion and did not necessarily indicate malice. The "mass appointments" made by Mayor Perdices in 1998 were not subject to CSC Resolution No. 010988 as it was issued later and could not be applied retroactively. Therefore, the alleged humiliation and financial difficulties stemmed from the CSC's actions, not from any culpable act of bad faith by Mayor Perdices. On the issue of Forum Shopping: The Court found no forum shopping. While the present case and G.R. No. 181559 share common factual antecedents, they involve different subject matters and issues. G.R. No. 181559 directly addresses the validity of the appointments, while the present case concerns the right to salaries and damages arising from the refusal to recognize those appointments, which is contingent on the outcome of G.R. No. 181559. The Court clarified that its ruling in the present case was limited to the availability of mandamus and damages, leaving the ultimate determination of appointment validity to G.R. No. 181559.
Main Doctrine
The writ of mandamus will not lie to compel payment of salaries when the right to such payment is not clearly established in law and is still subject to pending administrative and judicial resolution, especially when appointments were invalidated for violation of civil service law. Claims for damages are premature if the underlying cause of action is still under litigation.