Case Digest (G.R. No. 240614)
Facts:
In Alexis C. Canonizado, Edgar Dula Torres and Rogelio A. Pureza v. Hon. Alexander P. Aguirre, et al., G.R. No. 133132, decided on February 15, 2001, petitioners Canonizado, Torres and Pureza were removed from their positions as Commissioners of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) by virtue of Section 8 of Republic Act No. 8551, which deemed their terms expired upon the law’s effectivity. On April 15, 1998, they filed a petition before this Court assailing the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 8 of RA 8551 for violating their right to security of tenure under the 1987 Constitution. On January 25, 2000, the Court declared Section 8 unconstitutional, ordered their reinstatement, and awarded full backwages. Respondents—Executive Secretary Aguirre, Budget Secretary Boncodin, and NAPOLCOM Commissioners Adiong, Cairme, and Cristobal—moved for reconsideration, arguing among others that judicial notice must be taken of Canonizado’s appointment on June 30, 1998 as Inspector GenerCase Digest (G.R. No. 240614)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- On 6 March 1998, Republic Act No. 8551 (RA 8551) took effect, deeming expired the terms of existing National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) Commissioners and barring their reappointment, except under limited two-year extensions.
- Petitioners Alexis C. Canonizado, Edgar Dula Torres and Rogelio A. Pureza challenged the constitutionality of section 8 of RA 8551 and, on 25 January 2000, the Supreme Court en banc held that section 8 violated their right to security of tenure. The Court declared their removals null and void, ordered their reinstatement, and directed payment of full backwages from removal date.
- Motion for Reconsideration
- Respondents (Executive Secretary Aguirre, Budget Secretary Boncodin and NAPOLCOM Commissioners Adiong, Cairme, Cristobal) filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming:
- Judicial notice should be taken of Canonizado’s appointment and qualification as Inspector General of the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) of the PNP on 30 June 1998, with oaths on 2 and 7 July 1998.
- By accepting that position, Canonizado abandoned any claim to reinstatement as NAPOLCOM Commissioner, as the two offices are incompatible.
- Petitioners countered that:
- Canonizado’s removal was involuntary, compelled by an unconstitutional provision.
- He pursued his case without delay and never drew salary as IAS Inspector General.
- Seeking gainful employment during pendency of litigation did not imply abandonment.
- Procedural and Execution Issues
- Respondents questioned who among the four incumbent Commissioners (Cairme, Adiong, Magahum, Factoran) should yield to reinstated petitioners.
- Commissioner Adiong moved for clarification, asserting his entitlement to reinstatement under his original RA 6975 appointment.
- Respondents invoked parallels to quo warranto practice, arguing non-impleader of Magahum and Factoran deprived them of due process.
- Respondents requested, in the alternative, that petitioners be granted backwages without displacement, citing the remedy in Mayor v. Macaraig.
- Finally, respondents alleged that any reinstatement under RA 6975 would violate its section 16 term limits.
Issues:
- Did Canonizado, by accepting appointment as IAS Inspector General, abandon his claim to reinstatement as NAPOLCOM Commissioner?
- Does the incompatibility doctrine ipso facto vacate a first office when a second office is accepted during pendency of reinstatement proceedings?
- What is the proper execution of the Court’s 25 January 2000 decision as to:
- Removal of Commissioners appointed under section 8 of RA 8551 and reinstatement of petitioners?
- Reinstatement of Jose Percival L. Adiong under his original RA 6975 appointment?
- Participation or impleader of successors Magahum and Factoran?
- Application of alternative remedies (backwages in lieu of reinstatement)?
- Compliance with RA 6975’s term-of-office limitations?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)