G.R. No. 169604 - Collantes vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. 169604)

Petitioner

Nelson P. Collantes — career executive, claimed constructive dismissal from his Undersecretary post and asserted entitlement to reinstatement or an equivalent position and backwages due to his CESO status.

Respondents

Civil Service Commission (CSC) and Department of National Defense (DND), with involvement of the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) and the Court of Appeals (CA) in different stages of the controversy.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

29 Feb 1996: Collantes conferred Career Executive Service Eligibility.
10 Feb 1997: Appointed CESO II.
1 July 1998: Appointed Undersecretary for Civilian Relations (DND).
8 Feb 1999: Termination letter from President Estrada (effective date).
24 Mar 1999: Letter-request to CESB seeking assistance.
29 Jan 2001: Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus filed in CA (C.A. G.R. SP No. 62874).
13 Aug 2001: CSC Resolution No. 01-1364 found removal illegal and directed appropriate assignment and backwages.
30 Aug 2001: CA dismissed Collantes’ quo warranto/mandamus petition, finding he effectively resigned.
15 Jan 2002: CSC granted motion for execution of its resolution (Resolution No. 02-0084).
12 Nov 2002: CSC Reversal (Resolution No. 02-1482) reversing its earlier resolution after learning of the pending CA petition.
18 Jul 2003: Collantes filed petition for certiorari before CA seeking reversal of CSC resolutions.
5 Aug 2004: Collantes appointed General Manager, Philippine Retirement Authority; limited relief sought thereafter to backwages up to appointment date.
10 Mar 2005 and 31 Aug 2005: CA decision and resolution dismissing certiorari and denying reconsideration.
Supreme Court decision: Petition for review denied (Court applied 1987 Constitution principles).

Applicable Law and Rules

1987 Philippine Constitution (due process protections applicable to administrative proceedings).
Rule 45 (Petition for Review on Certiorari) and Rules of Court generally (Rule 7 Section 5 certification against forum shopping).
Rule 66 (quo warranto) and its prescription provision (Section 11 referenced).
Principles on immutability of final judgments and res judicata; doctrine against forum shopping.
CESB/CSC rules regarding CESO rank, deactivation, and inactive status (e.g., CESB Resolution No. 554, series of 2002) including modes of deactivating CES rank and effects thereof.

Material Facts

Collantes sought CESB assistance after termination. The CESB referred the matter to the CSC, which issued a resolution on 13 August 2001 finding his removal illegal and directing assignment and backwages. Separately, Collantes filed a quo warranto/mandamus petition in the CA, which on 30 August 2001 dismissed the petition on the ground Collantes had effectively resigned; that CA decision became final when Collantes withdrew his motion for extension to file a petition for review. The CSC, after initially ordering execution of its resolution, reversed itself on 12 November 2002 upon learning a CA petition had been pending, and later denied Collantes’ motion for reconsideration. Collantes then sought relief before the CA by certiorari, which was dismissed. Collantes later sought Supreme Court review limited to backwages from termination to his 2004 appointment.

Procedural Issue Presented

Which of two conflicting final and executory decisions—(a) the CSC’s 13 August 2001 resolution declaring Collantes’ removal illegal (with subsequent execution), and (b) the CA’s 30 August 2001 decision dismissing Collantes’ quo warranto/mandamus petition as he had effectively resigned—should be given effect? Collantes raised three issues: (A) whether CA erred in holding its CA decision bars execution of the final CSC resolution; (B) whether CSC committed grave abuse in reversing its final resolution; and (C) whether the CA erred in upholding the CSC resolution that allegedly allowed removal without assignment equivalent to CESO rank, violating security of tenure.

Parties’ Main Contentions

Petitioner: CSC resolution of 13 August 2001 was final, executory and valid, and the CSC’s later reversal violated immutability of final judgments and due process; the DND’s letter prompting CSC’s reversal was procedurally defective for lack of notice and process; petitioner distinguished resignation from relinquishment of CES rank and argued entitlement to assignment appropriate to his CESO Rank I and to backwages.
Respondents (CSC and DND): Invoked immutability and finality of the CA’s 30 August 2001 decision dismissing the quo warranto and asserted that Collantes effectively had two simultaneous proceedings—before the CSC and the CA—creating forum shopping and the potential for conflicting final decisions.

Forum Shopping, Res Judicata, and Certification Against Forum Shopping

The Court examined forum shopping doctrine and the certification requirement under Rule 7 Section 5. Elements of forum shopping were reviewed: identity of parties/interests, identity of rights asserted and reliefs sought, and the potential for a judgment in one action to have res judicata effect in the other. The Court found that, when Collantes learned (via the CESB letter of 8 February 2001) that the CESB had referred his request to the CSC (29 November 2000), he effectively had two pending proceedings addressing the same or related reliefs. The Court held that Collantes’ conduct—abandoning the CA appeal and moving to execute the CSC resolution—amounted to forum shopping and violated his certification with the CA, which required reporting any other pending claim within five days of knowledge.

CES Rank Versus Position; Inactive Status and Deactivation

The Court analyzed the distinction between a CESO’s rank and the particular position occupied. Jurisprudence was cited to show CES protection attaches to rank, not to a specific office. However, the Court emphasized that resignation from a position results in separation from service and deactivation of CES rank under CESB rules: a CESO in inactive status is one who no longer occupies a CES position due to separation (unless dismissal for cause). CESB Resolution No. 554 (2002) was applied to show modes of deactivating CES rank (appointment outside CES coverage, dropping from rolls, other separations) and that deactivation entails loss of rights and privileges tied to CES rank. The Court rejected an argument that one can resign from a position and yet retain active CES rank so as to compel presidential appointment to another position.

Collantes’ Alleged Resignation and Evidence

On the merits, the Court found Collantes did not present evidence showing he was removed without his consent. The record supported that Collantes resigned from his post (even if as a courtesy). The Court reiterated that a courtesy resignation is effective and that implied promises of reappointment carry no legal force and cannot override the appointing power’s discretion. The Court also noted that any express promise of appointment would be void since it would derogate appointing discretion and be outside commerce.

Conflict of Two Final Judgments and Available Solutions

Faced with two irreconcilable final decisions, the Court identified three theoretical solutions discussed in jurisprudence: (1) disregard the finality and let parties re-litigate merits; (2) give precedence to the chronologically earlier or later judgment (jurisprudence conflicted); or (3) give effect to the judgment rendered by the court of last resort. The Court rejected the third solution (which would simply deny Collantes’ petition), and opted for the first: to resolve the controversy on the merits rather than remanding. The Court found it more appropriate to adjudicate the issues itself because the record was complete and remand would cause unnecessary delay and force a lower court to re-decide matters it had already ruled upon.

Court’s Analysis and Rulings on Key Issues

Forum shopping/certification: The Court held Collantes had knowledge of the parallel CSC action and thus effectively had two proceedings addressing the same controversy. His withdrawal of appellate pursuit before the Supreme Court and subsequent execution of the CSC resolution indicated forum-shopping behavior and failure to comply with his certification duties.
Validity of CSC’s reversal: The Court recognized the CSC initially issued a resolution favorable to Collantes and l

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 169604)

Facts

Nelson P. Collantes (petitioner) was conferred Career Executive Service Eligibility on 29 February 1996 and was accorded the rank of Career Executive Service Officer (CESO) II by President Fidel V. Ramos on 10 February 1997.
More than a year later Collantes was appointed Undersecretary for Peace and Order of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
With change of administration to President Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Collantes allegedly received word from persons close to the President to give up his DILG position so the President could appoint his key officials; Collantes relinquished his post.
On 1 July 1998, President Estrada appointed Collantes Undersecretary for Civilian Relations of the Department of National Defense (DND).
Collantes’ stint at the DND was short; he was allegedly ordered by Secretary Orlando Mercado to renounce his post in favor of General Orlando Soriano. Collantes resigned in deference to the President’s prerogative, believing he would be given a new assignment.
Collantes was not given another post and received a letter from President Estrada terminating his services effective 8 February 1999.
On 24 March 1999 Collantes sought assistance of the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) relative to termination, invoking his right to security of tenure as a CESO.
Despite termination, President Estrada accorded Collantes CESO Rank I on 17 July 1999; no new appointment followed and Edgardo Batenga was appointed Undersecretary for Civilian Relations of the DND.
Collantes filed a Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus in the Court of Appeals on 29 January 2001 (C.A. G.R. SP No. 62874), alleging constructive dismissal without cause or due process and praying for nullification of Batenga’s appointment, reinstatement with full back salaries, or appointment to an equivalent-rank position commensurate with CESO Rank I.
On 13 August 2001 the Civil Service Commission (CSC) issued Resolution No. 01-1364 holding that Collantes’ relief as Undersecretary of DND amounted to illegal dismissal because he was not given another post concomitant to his eligibility.
On 30 August 2001 the Court of Appeals rendered Decision in C.A. G.R. SP No. 62874 dismissing Collantes’ Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus, finding that Collantes had effectively resigned and that public respondents were under no compulsion to reinstate him; the Court of Appeals also held that quo warranto was unavailing and that any action for quo warranto had prescribed.
The controversy reached the Supreme Court as G.R. No. 149883; Collantes manifested his desire not to pursue his appeal and withdrew his Petition for Review on Certiorari, resulting in the case being deemed closed and terminated by a Supreme Court resolution.
Collantes moved for execution of CSC Resolution No. 01-1364 and the CSC granted execution through Resolution No. 02-0084 dated 15 January 2002 directing DND to give Collantes a position appropriate to his eligibility and to pay backwages and benefits from his termination until reinstatement.
In a letter dated 7 February 2002, DND’s Legal Affairs Division urged CSC to revisit its Resolutions, asserting conflict with the Court of Appeals’ 30 August 2001 Decision which had attained finality.
On 12 November 2002, CSC issued Resolution No. 02-1482 reversing its prior Resolutions (Nos. 01-1364 and 02-0084) and declaring that, pursuant to the decision of the Court of Appeals, Collantes was deemed to have effectively resigned from his position as Undersecretary of the DND.
Collantes moved for reconsideration of CSC Resolution No. 02-1482 but was denied in CSC Resolution No. 03-0542 dated 5 May 2003.
On 18 July 2003 Collantes filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking reversal of CSC Resolutions Nos. 02-1482 and 03-0542 (the petition later docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 78092).
Before the Court of Appeals decided the certiorari petition, Collantes was appointed General Manager of the Philippine Retirement Authority on 5 August 2004.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the Petition for Certiorari in a Decision dated 10 March 2005, holding no grave abuse of discretion by the CSC in rendering Resolutions Nos. 02-1482 and 03-0542; the Court denied Collantes’ Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated 31 August 2005.
Collantes filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 169604) seeking reversal of the Court of Appeals’ Decision and Resolution, and limiting his prayer to payment of backwages and benefits from alleged dismissal on 8 February 1999 to his appointment on 5 August 2004 because of his 5 August 2004 appointment.

Procedural History (Chronological)

29 Feb 1996: Collantes conferred Career Executive Service Eligibility.
10 Feb 1997: Collantes accorded CESO II.
Appointment as DILG Undersecretary (date not specified), then relinquished post after change of administration.
1 Jul 1998: Appointed Undersecretary for Civilian Relations, DND.
8 Feb 1999: Termination letter from President Estrada effective on this date.
24 Mar 1999: Letter-request to CESB for assistance.
17 Jul 1999: President accorded Collantes CESO Rank I.
29 Nov 2000: CESB referred Collantes’ request to CSC (as later revealed).
29 Jan 2001: Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus filed with Court of Appeals (C.A. G.R. SP No. 62874).
8 Feb 2001: CESB letter informing Collantes of referral to CSC (date reflected in the record).
13 Aug 2001: CSC Resolution No. 01-1364 declares illegal removal and orders appropriate position/relief.
30 Aug 2001: Court of Appeals Decision in C.A. G.R. SP No. 62874 dismisses quid warranto petition, finds Collantes effectively resigned.
25 Oct 2001: Collantes filed Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution with CSC.
15 Jan 2002: CSC Resolution No. 02-0084 grants execution, directs DND to place Collantes appropriately and pay backwages.
7 Feb 2002: Letter from DND Legal Affairs urging CSC to revisit Resolutions due to conflict with Court of Appeals decision.
12 Nov 2002: CSC Resolution No. 02-1482 reverses prior CSC Resolutions and deems Collantes effectively resigned.
5 May 2003: CSC Resolution No. 03-0542 denies reconsideration.
18 Jul 2003: Collantes filed Petition for Certiorari with Court of Appeals to reverse CSC resolutions.
5 Aug 2004: Collantes appointed General Manager of the Philippine Retirement Authority.
10 Mar 2005: Court of Appeals dismissed certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 78092).
31 Aug 2005: Motion for Reconsideration denied by Court of Appeals.
29 Jan 2001–2005: Collantes’ proceedings traverse CA, CSC and SC; appeal to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 149883 was withdrawn, which caused closure and termination of that case.
March 6, 2007 / Feb 25, 2008: Notations in the published citation (546 Phil. 391) reflect dates of G.R. No. 169604 and publication.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and reversible error in holding that the Court of Appeals Decision in C.A. G.R. No. 62874 is a bar to implementing the final and executory CSC Resolution dated 13 August 2001.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and reversible error in not finding that the CSC committed grave abuse of discretion, lack or excess of jurisdiction, when it reversed its own final and executory decision (CSC Resolutions Nos. 01-1364 and 02-0084) and violated Collantes’ right to due process.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave and reversible error in upholding CSC Resolution that Collantes may be removed from his DND Undersecretary position without concomitant transfer to a position equivalent in rank (allegedly amounting to constructive dismissal in violation of his security of tenure as CESO).

Petitioner’s Contentions (as presented in the source)

The 13 August 2001 CSC Resolution declaring Collantes illegally removed and directing assignment/payments had attained finality because no appeal or motion for reconsideration was filed within allowable periods; the CSC also granted execution by Order dated 15 January 2002.
B