G.R. No. 189218 - Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital vs. Spouses Capanzana

Case Summary (G.R. No. 189218)

Procedural Posture and Relief Previously Granted

The Court had declared section 8 of RA 8551 violative of petitioners’ right to security of tenure and, as a consequence, held that petitioners’ removals and the appointments of other commissioners in their stead were nullities; the Court ordered reinstatement of petitioners and full backwages computed from their dates of removal. Respondents sought reconsideration of that ruling; the present resolution addresses arguments raised in that motion for reconsideration and clarifies execution of the earlier judgment.

Respondents’ Primary Contentions on Reconsideration

Respondents urged the Court to take judicial notice of Alexis Canonizado’s appointment as Inspector General of the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) of the PNP on 30 June 1998 and of his oath-taking on 2 July and 7 July 1998. They argued that Canonizado’s acceptance of that post constituted abandonment of his claim for reinstatement because the NAPOLCOM Commissioner post and the IAS Inspector General post are incompatible.

Petitioners’ Response Regarding Canonizado’s Acceptance of the IAS Post

Petitioners acknowledged the IAS appointment but argued Canonizado’s continued prosecution of the constitutional challenge showed no intent to abandon his NAPOLCOM claim. They emphasized Canonizado’s pursuit of the case shortly after RA 8551’s effectivity and submitted a PNP Finance Service certification that Canonizado never received salary for the IAS post.

Legal Standard on Abandonment of Office

The Court restated established principles: abandonment requires (1) an intention to relinquish the office and (2) an overt external act effectuating that intention. Abandonment must be total and clearly indicate absolute relinquishment; mere nonperformance does not suffice where nonperformance stems from disability or involuntary causes. Acquiescence in wrongful removal may also constitute abandonment if the officer unreasonably delays vindication of rights.

Application of Abandonment Law to Canonizado

The Court found Canonizado did not voluntarily abandon his NAPOLCOM post. He was compelled to leave under section 8 of RA 8551, a provision the Court had declared unconstitutional for infringing security of tenure. Petitioners promptly filed their constitutional challenge on 15 April 1998, demonstrating lack of deliberate intent to abandon. The Court concluded that removal pursuant to a constitutionally infirm statute negates a finding of voluntary relinquishment.

Incompatibility Doctrine and Its Relevance

The Court acknowledged the general rule that acceptance of a second office incompatible with the first automatically vacates the first. Incompatibility is not mere time conflict but arises from contrariety between duties. The Court agreed NAPOLCOM Commissioner and IAS Inspector General duties are incompatible in principle because IAS personnel are prohibited from participating in PNP personnel deliberations while NAPOLCOM supervises the PNP.

Why the Incompatibility Rule Did Not Bar Reinstatement Here

The incompatibility rule did not apply because Canonizado never concurrently discharged functions of both offices. His displacement from NAPOLCOM resulted from section 8 of RA 8551; at the time of his IAS appointment he had already ceased performing NAPOLCOM functions as a consequence of the statutory provision later declared void. Thus there was no simultaneous occupation or concurrent discharge of incompatible duties.

Precedents Supporting Acceptance of Another Position While Prosecuting Reinstatement

The Court relied on analogous precedent (Tan v. Gimenez and Gonzales v. Hernandez) where officers compelled to vacate or prevented from exercising functions accepted other government employment while appeals were pending. Those precedents justify temporary or subsequent employment when an officer is deprived of office by administrative action or similar circumstances and continues to pursue legal vindication; the officer’s right to earn a living and to serve in some capacity support such acceptance. The Court applied the same rationale here, noting Canonizado’s acceptance was motivated by public service and livelihood considerations.

Condition for Re-assumption of NAPOLCOM Office

Although Canonizado’s IAS acceptance did not bar his reinstatement claim, the Court required that, before reassuming the NAPOLCOM post, he must resign as Inspector General of the IAS-PNP to eliminate any possibility of incompatibility upon re-entry.

Effect of Declaring Section 8 Unconstitutional — Nullity of Appointments

The Court reiterated the principle that an unconstitutional act is void ab initio and confers no rights. Consequently, removals and appointments effectuated under the invalid section 8 are nullities. Appointments to offices that were not vacant because of illegal dismissal are invalid; there can be no valid appointment to a non-vacant position. Therefore, appointments of commissioners under RA 8551 are void, and petitioners’ positions were not legally vacated.

Specifics on Jose Percival L. Adiong and Execution of Reinstatement

Adiong had a peculiar status: originally appointed under RA 6975, later removed and reappointed under RA 8551 for two years. The Court held Adiong’s RA 8551 appointment is null and void, but he is entitled to the remainder of his term under his original appointment under RA 6975. To effectuate the earlier judgment, all commissioners appointed under RA 8551 (Cairme, Adiong insofar as under RA 8551, Magahum, Factoran) must be removed to allow reinstatement of petitioners and reinstatement of Adiong pursuant to RA 6975.

Parties, Intervention, and the Quo Warranto-like Argument

Respondents contended the remedy was akin to quo warranto and that Magahum and Factoran should have been impleaded. The Court disagreed: the pet

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 189218)

Case Caption, Court and Author

En banc decision reported at 404 Phil. 505.
G.R. No. 133132, promulgated February 15, 2001.
Resolution authored by Justice Gonzaga-Reyes.
Concurring: Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares‑Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval‑Gutierrez, JJ.

Nature of the Proceeding and Relief Sought

Petitioners (Alexis C. Canonizado, Edgar Dula Torres, Rogelio A. Pureza) sought relief contesting provisions of Republic Act No. 8551 (RA 8551) affecting their tenure as Commissioners of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
The Court’s earlier decision (25 January 2000) declared section 8 of RA 8551 violative of petitioners’ constitutionally mandated right to security of tenure.
Consequent relief ordered by the Court: declaration that petitioners’ removal and subsequent appointment of new commissioners were nullities; reinstatement of petitioners; payment of full backwages computed from date of removal.
Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration seeking modification/reversal and raised issues regarding execution of the Court’s prior ruling and alleged abandonment by petitioner Canonizado.

Procedural Posture in the Motion for Reconsideration

Respondents (represented by the Solicitor General in part) filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s 25 January 2000 decision.
Some errors assigned by respondents were considered already discussed and disposed of by the Court and were not further addressed in the resolution.
The principal matters addressed in the motion for reconsideration included: (1) request that the Court take judicial notice of Canonizado’s appointment and qualification as Inspector General of the Internal Affairs Service (IAS) of the PNP; (2) contention that Canonizado’s acceptance of that office constituted abandonment of his claim for reinstatement to NAPOLCOM; (3) execution issues arising from multiple commissioners then occupying NAPOLCOM positions; (4) contention that execution should be modified analogous to Mayor v. Macaraig; and (5) contention that reappointment of petitioners under RA 6975 would violate section 16 of RA 6975.

Key Facts as Stated in the Resolution

RA 8551 took effect on 6 March 1998 and contained section 8 which deemed the terms of current NAPOLCOM Commissioners expired and barred reappointment or extension except in specified circumstances.
Petitioners were removed pursuant to section 8 of RA 8551 and new commissioners were appointed in their stead.
Petitioners filed the present action on 15 April 1998 challenging the constitutionality of specified provisions of RA 8551.
President Estrada appointed Alexis C. Canonizado as Inspector General of the IAS on 30 June 1998; Canonizado took oaths on 2 July 1998 before Undersecretary Ronaldo Puno and again on 7 July 1998 before the President.
Petitioners maintained Canonizado’s acceptance of the IAS position did not constitute abandonment of his claim for reinstatement; petitioners annexed a certification from the Finance Service Office of the PNP stating Canonizado never received the salary pertaining to the Inspector General position.
On 30 June 1998, Leo S. Magahum and Cleofe M. Factoran were appointed as NAPOLCOM Commissioners by President Estrada, joining Romeo L. Cairme and Jose Percival L. Adiong (appointed earlier by President Ramos, with Adiong given a two‑year term pursuant to section 8 of RA 8551).
Cairme and Adiong took their oaths on April 6, 1998; Magahum and Factoran took their oaths on July 2, 1998.
Adiong also filed a Motion for Clarification claiming entitlement to reinstatement pursuant to his prior appointment under RA 6975.
Respondents argued the case resembled quo warranto and alleged that Magahum and Factoran should have been impleaded and given opportunity to defend their positions.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Canonizado’s appointment and acceptance of the Inspector General position constituted abandonment of his office as NAPOLCOM Commissioner and therefore forfeiture of his claim for reinstatement.
Whether the incompatibility doctrine—automatic vacatur where one accepts an incompatible second office—applies to Canonizado’s case.
The effect of the Court’s declaration that section 8 of RA 8551 is unconstitutional on: (a) the appointments made pursuant to that provision; (b) the status and reinstatement rights of petitioners and of Jose Percival L. Adiong; and (c) the validity of actions and appointments made under the unconstitutional provision.
Whether incumbent commissioners (Magahum, Factoran, Cairme, Adiong) should have been impleaded and whether failure to implead them precludes relief.
Whether, as an alternative, the Court should apply Mayor v. Macaraig to avoid displacement of incumbent commissioners by awarding salary, benefits and emoluments in lieu of reinstatement.
Whether the reappointment of petitioners under RA 6975 would violate section 16 of RA 6975.

Governing Legal Principles Articulated by the Court

Abandonment of an office: defined as voluntary relinquishment of an office by the holder with intent to terminate possession and control; requires (1) intention to abandon and (2) an overt or external act effectuating that intention.
Abandonment must be total and under circumstances clearly indicating absolute relinquishment; nonperformance of duties does not constitute abandonment when resulting from temporary disability or involuntary failure to perform.
Nonperformance may constitute abandonment if it is due to acquiescence in wrongful removal or unreasonable delay in vindicating one’s rights.
Where an officer vacates an office in deference to a statutory requirement later declared unconstitutional, such surrender will not be deemed abandonment and the officer may recover the office.
Incompatibility doctrine: A public off