Cuevas v. Macatangay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Maharlika A. Cuevas was appointed as Director III of the National Museum on a temporary basis and subsequently on a permanent basis. Another applicant, Elenita D.V. Alba, protested the appointment, asserting she was more qualified. The National Museum initially dismissed the protest, but the Civil Service Commission (CSC) later found the appointment invalid. The CSC determined that the National Museum Board of Trustees, not its Chairman, was the proper appointing authority for the Director III position, as stipulated by Republic Act No. 8492, the National Museum Act of 1998. This ruling effectively recalled petitioner's appointment. Procedural History: Following the CSC's recall of petitioner's appointment, the National Museum sought clarification from the CSC. The CSC, in turn, informed the National Museum and the petitioner that its resolution was final and that the proper recourse would have been an appeal within the reglementary period, which had lapsed. Petitioner then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CSC denied, stating that the communications were mere clarifications and not the main resolution subject to reconsideration. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA denied the petition, ruling that the CSC's communications were not appealable orders and that the petitioner should have appealed the original CSC Resolution No. 10-1438. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse the CA's decision. Petitioner argues that the CA erred in holding that a petition for certiorari was not the proper remedy and that the CSC did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Petitioner contends that even letter-responses can be subject to certiorari if issued with grave abuse of discretion and that his appointment was validly made by the Board of Trustees, citing meeting minutes. Respondents, through the Office of the Solicitor General, maintain that the CA correctly ruled that the CSC communications were not proper subjects for a certiorari petition and that petitioner's appointment was invalid as it was not issued by the proper appointing authority.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious and grave error in declaring that the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 was not the proper remedy under the circumstances. Whether the Court of Appeals committed serious and grave error in ruling that the respondent Civil Service Commission did not commit grave abuse of discretion.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy of certiorari: The Court held that the assailed orders of the CSC were mere letter-responses and not the judgments, orders, or resolutions contemplated by Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which can be assailed via a petition for certiorari. The CSC's letters dated June 27, 2011, and September 26, 2011, merely clarified procedural rules and reiterated the finality of CSC Resolution No. 10-1438. These letters did not decide the issue of the validity or invalidity of petitioner's appointment; that was the subject of CSC Resolution No. 10-1438 itself. The proper remedy for the petitioner was to file a motion for reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 10-1438, which invalidated his appointment, and thereafter, if necessary, file an appeal. Resorting to a petition for certiorari when an ordinary appeal is available is improper, as these remedies are mutually exclusive. The CA correctly pointed out that petitioner should have sought reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 10-1438, which was communicated to the National Museum on October 14, 2010, and an appeal should have been filed instead of a letter seeking clarification. The petitioner's claim of not receiving notice was belied by the records, which indicated that Director Barns had verbally assured the petitioner and had taken it upon himself to handle the matter, implying knowledge of the invalidation. On whether the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion: The Court found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the CSC. The CSC correctly applied Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8492, the National Museum Act of 1998, which clearly states that the Board of Trustees shall appoint the Director of the National Museum. The CSC found that the appointment of petitioner was made by the Chairman, not the Board, and that there is no statutory authority under R.A. No. 8492 for the Board to delegate its appointing power to the Chairman. The Court reiterated that the Board of Trustees, as the policy-making body and appointing authority, cannot alienate or surrender its discretionary power in the absence of statutory authorization. The CA's observation that the Board Resolution itself was not ambiguous and that resort to the minutes of the meeting was unnecessary was also upheld. The Board Resolution clearly indicated the Chairman as the appointing authority, which was in violation of R.A. No. 8492. Therefore, the invalidation of the appointment by the CSC was a valid exercise of its authority.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper remedy to assail mere letter-responses from an administrative body; the proper remedy is to appeal the original resolution or decision that invalidated the appointment. Furthermore, the Board of Trustees of the National Museum cannot delegate its appointing power to the Chairman without express statutory authority.