Rosete v. CA

G.R. No. 107841 (November 14, 1996)

Facts:

Petitioner Reino R. Rosete, a medical doctor with a master's degree in Hospital Administration, began his career at the Olongapo City General Hospital in 1962 and was appointed Chief of Hospital on September 1, 1971. On November 20, 1985, Richard J. Gordon, the Mayor of Olongapo City, filed formal charges against Rosete, alleging grave misconduct, dishonesty, neglect of duty, and other serious offenses. On January 2, 1986, Gordon found Rosete guilty and summarily dismissed him, labeling him as "notoriously undesirable."

Rosete contested his dismissal, claiming it was made without due process. He filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus with the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 73449), arguing that an appeal to the Civil Service Commission was inadequate due to the nature of the charges and the lack of a proper hearing. However, the case was rendered moot by the EDSA Revolution in February 1986, which resulted in Gordon's ouster.

On March 19, 1986, OIC Mayor Teddy C. Macapagal reversed Rosete's dismissal, allowing him to resume his duties. This decision was based on the assertion that the charges against Rosete were unfounded and that he had been a competent Chief of Hospital. The Supreme Court dismissed Rosete's initial petition as moot on May 19, 1987, acknowledging his reinstatement.

In November 1987, after Macapagal was succeeded by Ildefonso Arriola, Rosete was ordered to cease his duties as Chief of Hospital, and Dr. Antonio M. Cava was appointed as Officer-in-Charge. Rosete continued to perform his functions, asserting his legal right to the position. Following local elections, Gordon was re-elected and appointed Dr. Concordia A. Ligad as Chief of Hospital on February 3, 1988. On February 8, 1988, Gordon reiterated Rosete's dismissal, leading to Rosete's office being padlocked and his belongings removed.

On March 8, 1988, Rosete filed another petition for mandamus (G.R. No. 82171) to restore him to his position and seek back pay. The case was referred to the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, where Judge Esther Nobles Bans issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Rosete, ordering his reinstatement and the payment of back salaries.

Gordon and the City Treasurer subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which granted their petition and annulled the trial court's orders. This led to Rosete's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the status quo at the time of Rosete's petition for mandamus was that he was not holding office as Chief of Hospital.
2. Whether Rosete had a clear legal right to the position of Chief of Hospital.

Arguments:

• Petitioner (Rosete): Argued that he was wrongfully dismissed without due process and that his reinstatement by OIC Macapagal meant he had never legally left his position. He contended that the subsequent appointments of Dr. Ligad and Dr. Mendoza were invalid as they were made after his illegal dismissal and did not consider his reinstatement.

• Respondents (Gordon and City Treasurer): Claimed that Rosete's dismissal was valid and that he had not appealed the first dismissal to the Civil Service Commission, rendering it final. They argued that the appointments of Ligad and Mendoza were legitimate and that Rosete had no legal right to the position.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found merit in Rosete's petition, ruling that the Court of Appeals had erred in its assessment of the status quo. The Court emphasized that while Rosete was not holding the position at the time of his second dismissal, this was due to the illegal nature of his first dismissal, which had been reversed by OIC Macapagal. The Court held that Rosete's reinstatement meant he had never left his office for legal purposes, and thus, he was entitled to the rights and privileges associated with his position.

The Court reiterated that the right to due process is fundamental, especially for civil service employees, and that any dismissal must be for just cause and follow the proper legal procedures. The Court also noted that the subsequent appointments of Ligad and Mendoza could not be considered valid due to the lack of a lawful basis for Rosete's dismissal.

The Court ultimately nullified the Court of Appeals' decision and reinstated the orders of the Regional Trial Court, affirming Rosete's right to his position and the payment of his back salaries.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The principle of due process in administrative dismissals, emphasizing that civil service employees cannot be removed without just cause and proper procedures.
2. The concept of "status quo" in legal proceedings, which refers to the last actual, peaceable, and uncontested state prior to the controversy.
3. The legal effect of reinstatement on prior dismissals, establishing that an employee reinstated after an illegal dismissal is considered to have never left their position.