Facts:

The case involves Dr. Isabelita Vital-Gozon, the Medical Center Chief of the National Children's Hospital, as the petitioner, and Dr. Alejandro S. de la Fuente as the respondent. The events leading to this case began in early 1987 when President Corazon C. Aquino issued Executive Order No. 119, which reorganized various offices within the Ministry of Health. Dr. de la Fuente, who had been the Chief of Clinics since December 20, 1978, received a notice on February 4, 1988, indicating his reappointment as "Medical Specialist II." He perceived this as a demotion and filed a protest with the Department of Health (DOH) Reorganization Board, which was ignored. Subsequently, he escalated the matter to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), where it was docketed as CSC Case No. 4.

On August 9, 1988, the CSC ruled that Dr. de la Fuente's demotion was null and void, ordering his reinstatement to the position of Chief of Clinics (now Chief of Medical Professional Staff...

Facts:

Background of the Case:

1. In 1987, pursuant to Executive Order No. 119, the Ministry of Health underwent reorganization, leading to the abolition of existing offices and the transfer of personnel.
2. Dr. Alejandro S. de la Fuente was the Chief of Clinics of the National Children's Hospital (NCH) since December 20, 1978. Prior to this, he held the position of Medical Specialist II, which he was promoted to in 1977 after serving as Medical Specialist I since 1971.

Demotion and Protest: 3. On February 4, 1988, Dr. de la Fuente was notified by the Department of Health (DOH) that he would be reappointed as "Medical Specialist II," which he considered a demotion. 4. Dr. de la Fuente filed a protest with the DOH Reorganization Board, which was ignored. He then brought his case to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), docketed as CSC Case No. 4.

Civil Service Commission's Decision: 5. On August 9, 1988, the CSC declared Dr. de la Fuente's demotion/transfer null and void, ordering his reinstatement as Chief of Clinics (renamed Chief of Medical Professional Staff) with back salaries and benefits. 6. The CSC's resolution became final on September 21, 1988, as no motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed within the prescribed period.

Failure to Implement the CSC Resolution: 7. Dr. de la Fuente sent two letters to Dr. Isabelita Vital-Gozon, the Medical Center Chief of NCH, demanding implementation of the CSC's decision. 8. Dr. Vital-Gozon referred the matter to the DOH Legal Department but did not respond to Dr. de la Fuente's letters or take steps to comply with the CSC's resolution. 9. Dr. de la Fuente claimed that Dr. Vital-Gozon threatened to stop paying his salary and allowances, citing the lack of an "approved" appointment.

Filing of Mandamus Action: 10. After three months of inaction, Dr. de la Fuente filed a petition for mandamus and damages with preliminary injunction in the Court of Appeals on December 28, 1988, seeking compliance with the CSC's resolution and claiming damages for the refusal to implement the decision.

Court of Appeals' Decision: 11. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Dr. de la Fuente, ordering Dr. Vital-Gozon and other respondents to comply with the CSC's resolution. However, the court denied Dr. de la Fuente's claim for damages, stating that mandamus was not the proper vehicle for such a claim.

Subsequent Motions and Resolutions: 12. Dr. de la Fuente filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to award damages in a mandamus action. The Court of Appeals granted the motion, allowing Dr. de la Fuente to present evidence on his claim for damages. 13. Dr. Vital-Gozon, through the Solicitor General, filed multiple motions for reconsideration, which were denied by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in Mandamus Cases: The Court of Appeals has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Supreme Court and the Regional Trial Court to issue writs of mandamus. Under BP 129, the Court of Appeals is empowered to take cognizance of claims for damages in mandamus actions, as such claims are incidental to the main relief sought.
2. Divisibility of Judgments: A judgment in a mandamus case can be divisible, allowing partial execution. The enforcement of the CSC's resolution (reinstatement and payment of back salaries) is distinct from the claim for damages, which can be pursued separately without affecting the enforceability of the main judgment.
3. Role of the Solicitor General: The Solicitor General cannot represent a public official in a civil suit for damages arising from the official's refusal to comply with a final and executory judgment. Such representation would undermine the Solicitor General's duty to uphold the rule of law and ensure compliance with judicial decisions.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' resolutions, holding that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to award damages in a mandamus action and that the Solicitor General could not represent the public official in the claim for damages. The judgment was deemed divisible, allowing partial execution without estopping the plaintiff from pursuing damages.