Nicart v. Titong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Prior to the end of his term, then Governor Ben P. Evardone of Eastern Samar issued ninety-three appointments, including those of respondents Ma. Josefina Titong and Joselito Abrugar, Sr. These appointments were confirmed by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, and the appointees assumed their positions. However, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office disapproved all 93 appointments, citing violations of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 16, series of 2007, which prohibits appointments made after elections up to June 30 by outgoing elective officials. Governor Evardone's appeal was dismissed, and while respondents initially sought reconsideration, they later converted their appeals to petitions for review with the CSC proper. The Commission on Audit (COA) Provincial Office and the subsequent Governor, Conrado B. Nicart, Jr., denied the respondents' claims for salary payments. Procedural History: The Civil Service Commission (CSC) ultimately granted the petition for review in CSC Decision No. 10-0242, modifying the regional office's ruling and declaring the appointments of Titong and Abrugar valid. The CSC denied petitioner Nicart's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 119975, arguing the appointments violated CSC rules. While this appeal was pending, the CSC issued a writ of execution for the payment of respondents' salaries. Consequently, respondents filed a Petition for Mandamus with Unspecified Damages against petitioner and other provincial officials in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Civil Case No. 4236, seeking payment of salaries, appropriation of funds, and recognition of their appointments. The CA, in CA-G.R. SP No. 119975, ruled that the appointments were invalid, a decision affirmed by this Court in G.R. No. 203835. Despite these rulings, the RTC granted the petition for mandamus, ordering petitioner to pay salaries and recognize the appointments, citing the CSC's decision and the lack of a restraining order from the CA. The Petition: Petitioner Conrado B. Nicart, Jr., as Provincial Governor, seeks review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, praying for the annulment of the RTC's Decision dated April 11, 2013, its June 20, 2013 Order, and the writ of mandamus dated April 16, 2013, issued in Civil Case No. 4236. The petition argues that the RTC gravely erred in granting the mandamus petition and enforcing the CSC Decision despite the Court of Appeals' ruling, affirmed by the Supreme Court, that the respondents' appointments were invalid. Petitioner contends that the RTC should have been aware of the CA's decision and the Supreme Court's affirmation, rendering the mandamus action moot and academic and making any refusal to comply with the writ of mandamus not constitute contempt, as the underlying basis for the mandamus had been definitively resolved against the respondents.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC gravely erred in granting the petition for mandamus despite the Court of Appeals' ruling that the respondents' appointments were invalid and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Whether the RTC gravely erred in enforcing the Civil Service Commission's Decision despite being aware of the Court of Appeals' Decision reversing it. Whether the RTC's writ of mandamus can be validly refused compliance in light of the Supreme Court's Resolution affirming the Court of Appeals' Decision, and if such refusal constitutes contempt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the Decision dated April 11, 2013, the Order dated June 20, 2013, and the writ of mandamus dated April 16, 2013, all issued by the RTC, Branch 2 of Borongan City, Eastern Samar in Civil Case No. 4236.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the writ of mandamus and enforcement of the CSC Decision: The RTC erred in granting the petition for mandamus and enforcing the CSC Resolution. The RTC's primary basis, Section 82 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, which states that the pendency of an appeal does not stay execution unless a restraining order is issued, was misapplied. While ordinarily this would make the CSC Resolution executory, the RTC failed to consider that the propriety of the mandamus itself was wholly dependent on the CA's resolution of the appeal concerning the validity of the appointments. The RTC disregarded the principle of judicial courtesy by proceeding despite the pendency of CA-G.R. SP No. 119975, which directly addressed the validity of the appointments that the mandamus sought to enforce. The RTC's affirmation of the CSC's findings effectively pre-empted the CA's decision and made its own determination on the validity of the appointments, which was not the issue before it. The RTC went beyond the scope of the mandamus petition by affirming the validity of the appointments, an issue pending before the CA. On the effect of the Supreme Court's Resolutions: The enforcement of the CSC Resolution is no longer proper or necessary because the Supreme Court, in its Resolutions dated February 27, 2013, and February 10, 2014, affirmed the CA's ruling that the respondents' appointments were invalid. These resolutions resolved with finality G.R. No. 203835, effectively writing finis to the question of the appointments' status. The dismissal of the petition in G.R. No. 203835, even if contained in a minute resolution, constituted a disposition on the merits and barred relitigation of the issues under the doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment. Therefore, the mandamus petition, which relied on the CSC's affirmation of the appointments' validity, now has no basis for issuance. On the mootness of the case: The issue of the propriety of enforcing the CSC Resolution is now moot and academic due to the Supreme Court's affirmation of the CA's decision invalidating the appointments. A moot and academic case is one that no longer presents a justiciable controversy, and any judgment would have no practical legal effect. The supervening event here is the Supreme Court's issuance of resolutions affirming the CA's finding against the validity of the respondents' appointments, effectively reversing the RTC's earlier stance. Consequently, the mandamus petition, which sought to enforce a CSC resolution that has been definitively declared invalid by the highest court, can no longer be granted.
Main Doctrine
A lower court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to enforce a Civil Service Commission resolution upholding an appointment when a higher court has subsequently affirmed the invalidity of that appointment, rendering the mandamus petition moot and academic.