G.R. No. 192799 - Rodriguez y Olayres vs. People

Several key positions in the Supreme Court had remained vacant for years, including the Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Attorney (vacant since 2013) and two Assistant Court Administrator positions (vacant since 2013).
Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro raised concerns that these long‑standing vacancies negatively affected the best interest of the service.
She emphasized that the Constitution vests the power of appointments in the Court En Banc and questioned the delegation of that power to the Chief Justice and Division Chairpersons.

The controversy centers on Atty. Mendoza’s appointment as the PHILJA Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC).
Traditionally, appointments to certain high‑ranking or highly technical positions were made by the Court En Banc upon the recommendation and ratification by the PHILJA Board of Trustees.
In contrast, Atty. Mendoza was appointed by Memorandum Order No. 26-2016 – signed by the Chief Justice together with the two most senior Associate Justices – based on a recommendation forwarded by a screening panel led by PHILJA Chancellor Azcuna.

The issues emanated from differing interpretations of Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 99-12-08-SC (Revised) and A.M. No. 05-9-29-SC, which purportedly delegated appointment functions.
Associate Justice Leonardo-De Castro argued that the term “personnel” in such orders traditionally applied only to subordinate staff and should exclude managers, directors, or heads of offices—especially those with judicial rank or with salary grades 29 and higher.
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno and supporting opinions, on the other hand, maintained that the appointment of Atty. Mendoza was valid under the existing administrative orders and the Supreme Court Human Resource Manual.

In a series of submissions and exchanges spanning from July 2017 until October 2017, various justices and court officials debated whether key positions, particularly the PHILJA Chief of Office for PMC, should be appointed by the Court En Banc or could be delegated to the Chief Justice and Division Chairpersons.
The exchange involved recommendations for posting the vacant positions immediately, clarifying the scope of delegated appointment authority, and addressing apparent procedural irregularities in Atty. Mendoza’s appointment process.
Later, administrative motions were filed concerning other related issues such as approval of foreign travel requests by certain officials.

On February 20, 2018, Atty. Mendoza tendered her resignation as PHILJA Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation Center, effective February 26, 2018, citing her need to pursue an international opportunity in environmental mediation.
With her resignation, the matter of ratifying her appointment became moot, although it raised enduring questions regarding the correct interpretation and application of the delegation of appointment powers within the Judiciary.

Whether the Court En Banc’s delegation of appointment power via A.M. No. 99-12-08-SC (Revised) – and its interpretation in light of A.M. No. 05-9-29-SC and the Supreme Court Human Resource Manual – properly extends to positions considered highly technical or policy‑determining, especially those with salary grades 29 and higher, and with judicial rank.
Whether the term “personnel” should be read narrowly to include only subordinate staff, thereby excluding high‑ranking officials and heads of offices such as the PHILJA Chief of Office for PMC.

Whether Atty. Mendoza’s appointment as PHILJA Chief of Office for the Philippine Mediation Center, effected by Memorandum Order No. 26-2016 and based on a recommendation by PHILJA’s screening panel (rather than a Board of Trustees resolution), was made in accordance with the required procedures.
Whether procedural irregularities in the absence of an explicit PHILJA Board of Trustees resolution undermine the appointment, given the constitutional mandate that the power to appoint judicial personnel lies with the Court En Banc.

How the perceived ambiguity in the delegation of appointment power affects both the appointment and potential recall of high‑ranking court personnel.
Whether any decision regarding the appointment process should have retroactive effects on previously made appointments, potentially disrupting the service of those appointed under the delegated power.