Garces v. CA

G.R. No. 114795 (July 17, 1996)

Lucita Garces contested her appointment; court dismissed her petition, suggested quo warranto action.

Facts:

Petitioner Lucita Garces was appointed as the Election Registrar of Gutalac, Zamboanga del Norte, on July 27, 1986, to replace respondent Claudio Concepcion, who was to be transferred to Liloy, Zamboanga del Norte. Both appointments were approved by the Civil Service Commission and were to take effect upon assumption of office. However, Concepcion refused to vacate his position in Gutalac, claiming he did not request the transfer. Garces was directed to assume the Gutalac post but was prohibited from doing so by a memorandum from Provincial Election Supervisor Salvador Empeynado, which stated that the position was not vacant.

On February 24, 1987, Garces was instructed to defer her assumption of the post. Subsequently, she received a letter with a check addressed to her as the Election Registrar of Gutalac, which she interpreted as a signal to proceed with her appointment. Meanwhile, Concepcion continued to occupy the Gutalac office, and the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) later canceled his appointment to Liloy.

On February 26, 1988, Garces filed a petition for mandamus against Empeynado and Concepcion, among others, seeking to compel her assumption of the Gutalac post. However, the COMELEC, through a resolution dated June 3, 1988, recognized Concepcion as the Election Registrar of Gutalac and canceled Garces' appointment. Empeynado moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that it was rendered moot by the COMELEC resolution and that the case was cognizable only by the COMELEC under the 1987 Constitution.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the petition for mandamus, stating that quo warranto was the proper remedy and that the matters referred to in the Constitution pertained only to the conduct of elections. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's dismissal, leading to Garces filing a petition for review.

Legal Issues:

  1. Is the action for mandamus filed by Garces proper?
  2. Is the case cognizable by the RTC or by the Supreme Court?

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Garces):

    • Garces argued that she had a clear legal right to the Gutalac post, which she believed was vacated upon her appointment and qualification. She contended that the vacancy was created by the Provisional Constitution.

  • Respondents (Empeynado and Concepcion):

    • Concepcion maintained that he did not vacate his position as he did not accept the transfer to Liloy. Empeynado argued that the COMELEC resolution rendered the case moot and that the RTC lacked jurisdiction, as the matter should be addressed by the COMELEC.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court ruled against Garces, affirming the lower courts' decisions. The Court reasoned that:

  1. Mandamus Not Proper: The Court found that Garces did not have a clear legal right to the Gutalac post. The appointment of Garces was subject to a deferment order from the COMELEC, which was not unequivocally lifted. Furthermore, the COMELEC had canceled her appointment, which negated her claim to the position. The Court emphasized that mandamus is an appropriate remedy only when the petitioner has a clear and certain legal right, which was not the case here.

  2. Quo Warranto as Proper Remedy: The Court noted that the proper remedy for Garces would have been a quo warranto action, which is used to test the title to an office claimed by another. Mandamus is not suitable for trying disputed titles.

  3. Jurisdiction of the RTC: The Court rejected the argument that the case was cognizable only by the COMELEC. It clarified that the controversy involved an administrative matter regarding the appointment of an official, not an election dispute. Therefore, the RTC had jurisdiction over the case.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The ruling clarified the distinction between mandamus and quo warranto, emphasizing that mandamus is not appropriate for resolving disputes over titles to office.
  • The decision reinforced the principle that an appointment to a public office cannot occur unless the position is vacant, and that a transfer without consent does not create a vacancy.
  • The case highlighted the jurisdictional boundaries between the RTC and the COMELEC, particularly regarding administrative appointments versus election-related matters.