G.R. No. 205382 - People vs. Hallarte y Mendoza

On January 16, 2008, Marey Beth D. Marzan was appointed as City Government Department Head II of the City Planning and Development Office (CPDO) of Olongapo City by then Mayor James Gordon, Jr.
The appointment was approved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) on June 7, 2011, conferring upon Marzan a permanent status in that position.
On December 1, 2011, Mayor Gordon issued a memorandum appointing Marzan as City Budget Officer (CBO) while she was concurrently still the CPDO Department Head, effectively assigning her to a lateral role.

According to Marzan, Mayor Gordon directed respondent Angie Socorro S. Barroga (Acting Chief Administrative Officer of the Human Resource Management Office) to facilitate the lateral transfer from CPDO to CBO.
On May 6, 2013, Mayor Rolen C. Paulino assumed office and later appointed Tony Kar Balde III to fill Marzan’s former CPDO position.
On August 16, 2013, the CSC, represented by Director Carlos P. Rabang, informed Mayor Paulino that Marzan’s CBO appointment was disapproved due to a discrepancy between the date of the appointment’s signing (November 16, 2012) and the approval by the Sangguniang Panglungsod (December 21, 2011).
Following the CSC’s disapproval, on August 29, 2013, Barroga issued a termination letter (City Termination Letter) to Marzan, effective September 14, 2013.

Marzan sent a letter to the CSC Regional Office inquiring about the effects of the disapproval on her employment status, questioning who was accountable for ensuring compliance with CSC appointment requirements.
In her inquiries, she asked whether the disapproval of her transfer appointment automatically resulted in termination, or if she was entitled to revert to her previous CPDO position under Civil Service Law.
On September 4, 2013, Marzan clarified in a letter that the August 2013 CSC letter did not categorically terminate her services but only indicated non-compliance in facilitating her appointment.
Despite her inquiry, on September 6, 2013, Barroga reaffirmed that her service would end on September 14, 2013, after which Marzan continued to report for work.
On September 13, 2013, Marzan notified Mayor Paulino and Barroga that she had sought clarification from the CSC Regional Office and indicated that a status quo must be observed pending resolution.
On the same day later in the afternoon, Marzan was confronted by security personnel and Balde, who ordered her to vacate her office.
On September 16, 2013, Marzan attempted to report for work but was blocked by personnel stationed at her work area.
On September 24, 2013, Marzan received a letter (the September 2013 CSC Letter) from Director Rabang explaining the CSC’s position and advising that an appeal be filed under Section 110 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS).

Marzan filed a Petition for Mandamus with the RTC against the City Government of Olongapo, Mayor Paulino, Barroga, and Balde.
The petition sought:

A writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to reinstate her as CPDO Department Head.
A writ of mandamus directing the respondents to respect her rights and enable her to perform her duties.
Payment of moral damages (P250,000.00), exemplary damages (P100,000.00), attorney’s fees and litigation expenses (P100,000.00), and costs of suit.

Marzan had vacated her CPDO position after accepting the CBO appointment.
Her invocation of Section 13 of the Omnibus Rules was misplaced as the necessary conditions for a promotion were absent.
Her resort to mandamus was premature because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

On January 6, 2014, the RTC denied Marzan’s prayer for injunctive relief. Her subsequent motion for reconsideration was similarly denied.
On October 2, 2014, the RTC dismissed her Petition for Mandamus on both procedural and substantive grounds, noting the exhaustion rule and the discretionary nature of reinstatement.

Unhappy with the RTC’s decision, Marzan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court.
In her appeal, she argued that:

The dismissal of her petition without a full-blown trial was improper.
Her immediate resort to judicial remedies was justified given the pureness of the legal question involved.

The CA held that a full trial was not mandatory for a mandamus case under Rule 65.
It echoed the finding that Marzan failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
It ruled that her claim for reinstatement under Section 13, Rule VI did not apply because her appointment was a lateral transfer, not a promotion.

Marzan’s subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on July 4, 2017.
Marzan then filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File a Petition for Review, eventually filing her petition on August 31, 2017.
In the Petition for Review, Marzan maintained that she was unlawfully removed from a permanent position in violation of Civil Service Laws and reiterated her claim for reinstatement and damages.

Whether Marzan’s immediate resort to judicial remedies was proper despite the general requirement to exhaust available administrative remedies.

The contention pertained to whether the legal issue raised was purely a question of law, thus justifying bypassing administrative procedures.

Whether a writ of mandamus will lie to compel the reinstatement of Marzan as Department Head of the CPDO.

This required an assessment of whether the reinstatement was a ministerial act or a discretionary decision.
It involved determining if Marzan’s appointment circumstances qualified as a promotion under Section 13, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules.