CONRADO B. NICART, JR., AS PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR OF LGU-EASTERN SAMAR, PETITIONER, VS. MA. JOSEFINA C. TITONG AND JOSELITO M. ABRUGAR, SR., RESPONDENTS.

Nicart versus Titong

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the Provincial Governor of Eastern Samar against two provincial government department heads. The case concerns the validity of a writ of mandamus issued by the Regional Trial Court compelling the Governor and the provincial government to pay the salaries and recognize the appointments of the respondents, after the Civil Service Commission had approved those appointments but the Court of Appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court had declared them invalid. This case matters because it settles the interplay between the execution of a Civil Service Commission decision pending appeal, the doctrine of judicial courtesy, and the binding effect of a final Supreme Court ruling on the validity of appointments.

Procedural History

The Civil Service Commission Regional Office disapproved the appointments of the respondents for having been made in violation of Civil Service Commission rules. On appeal, the Civil Service Commission proper reversed and approved the appointments. The Governor then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Civil Service Commission and declared the appointments invalid. The respondents appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court denied the petition and later denied reconsideration, affirming the Court of Appeals with finality.

Meanwhile, while the Court of Appeals case was still pending, the respondents filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court of Borongan City, Eastern Samar, to enforce the Civil Service Commission decision and compel payment of their salaries. The trial court granted the mandamus petition. The Governor then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review, seeking to annul the trial court's decision, its order denying reconsideration, and the writ of mandamus.

Facts

Days before the end of his term, the outgoing Governor of Eastern Samar issued ninety-three appointments, including those of the respondents, and these were confirmed by the provincial board. The appointees assumed their positions. However, the Civil Service Commission Regional Office disapproved all ninety-three appointments for having been made in violation of a Civil Service Commission memorandum circular prohibiting appointments issued after elections by outgoing elective officials.

The outgoing Governor appealed, but the appeal was dismissed. The respondents moved for reconsideration, then converted their motions into a petition for review with the Civil Service Commission proper. The Commission granted the petition, approved the respondents' appointments, and directed the provincial government to pay their salaries from the time they assumed office. The Governor moved for reconsideration, but this was denied.

The Governor then went to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Civil Service Commission and declared the appointments invalid. The respondents appealed to the Supreme Court. While that appeal was pending, the respondents filed their mandamus petition with the trial court, which granted it and ordered the Governor to pay their salaries and recognize their appointments. The Supreme Court then denied the respondents' appeal and later denied reconsideration, affirming the Court of Appeals with finality. Only after these final resolutions did the Governor's present petition reach the Court.

Issues

• Whether or not the enforcement of the Civil Service Commission decision upholding the legality of the respondents' appointments remains proper, considering the Supreme Court's affirmation of the invalidity of those appointments.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court gravely erred in granting the respondents' petition for mandamus despite the pendency of the Court of Appeals case involving the same appointments.
• Whether or not the Regional Trial Court gravely erred in enforcing the Civil Service Commission decision after it had been reversed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 82 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which is Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular Number 19, series of 1999, provides:

The filing and pendency of a petition for review with the Court of Appeals or certiorari with the Supreme Court shall not stop the execution of the final decision of the Commission, unless the Court issues a restraining order or an injunction.

This provision was the foundation of the trial court's decision to proceed with the mandamus petition and enforce the Civil Service Commission decision despite the pending appeal. The Supreme Court, however, held that this provision must yield to the principle of judicial courtesy and the supervening finality of the Court's own rulings.

Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition and annulled the trial court's decision, its order, and the writ of mandamus. The Court held that while the non-issuance of an injunction would ordinarily make the Civil Service Commission decision executory pending appeal, the trial court failed to consider that the propriety of the writ of mandamus was wholly dependent on the Court of Appeals' resolution of the petition for review. Judicial courtesy dictated that the trial court suspend its proceedings and await the higher court's resolution.

The Court further held that the trial court went beyond the issues of the case when it affirmed the validity of the respondents' appointments, since the only issue before it was the propriety of executing the Civil Service Commission resolution through a writ of mandamus. By making findings on the validity of the appointments, the trial court pre-empted the Court of Appeals' resolution of the appeal.

Most importantly, the Court held that the enforcement of the disputed Civil Service Commission resolution was no longer proper and necessary in light of the Court's resolutions affirming the Court of Appeals' ruling that the appointments were invalid. The Court stated:

Having written finis to the issue of whether respondents were validly appointed or not, the mandamus now has no basis upon which its issuance can be anchored under the principle of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.

The Court explained that a moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical value. Here, the supervening event was the Court's issuance of two resolutions affirming the invalidity of the appointments, which effectively reversed the trial court's affirmation of the Civil Service Commission's findings.

Doctrine

First, the principle of judicial courtesy requires a lower court to suspend its proceedings and await the resolution of a higher court when the issues before the lower court are intimately correlated with those pending before the higher court, even if no technical prejudicial question exists.

Second, a final judgment on the merits, even if contained in a minute resolution, constitutes a bar to the relitigation of the issues raised under the doctrine of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.

Third, a writ of mandamus cannot be anchored on a Civil Service Commission decision that has been reversed with finality by the Supreme Court, as the enforcement of such a decision becomes moot and academic.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the Governor's petition, annulled and set aside the trial court's decision, its order, and the writ of mandamus, and made no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Remember that judicial courtesy can require a lower court to hold its hand even without an injunction, and that a final Supreme Court ruling on the validity of appointments renders any contrary enforcement moot. Examiners like to use this case to test the limits of the execution of quasi-judicial decisions pending appeal and the binding effect of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.