Title
Mantala vs. Salvador
Case
G.R. No. 101646
Decision Date
Feb 13, 1992
Dr. Mantala's contested appointment as Division Chief was upheld by the Civil Service Commission, whose final decision prevailed over the RTC's annulment, affirming exclusive jurisdiction over civil service disputes.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 101646)

Background Facts

In July 1988, Dr. Mantala was appointed temporarily by the Secretary of Health to a significant position within the Department of Health. This appointment faced immediate opposition from Dr. Regino, who filed a protest based on her argument that she was the next-in-rank personnel entitled to the position. The Committee on Evaluation and Protest found in favor of Dr. Mantala, leading Dr. Regino to appeal to the Merit Systems Board of the Civil Service Commission.

Administrative Proceedings

On December 14, 1989, the Merit Systems Board ruled in favor of Dr. Regino, prompting an appeal from the Department of Health to the Civil Service Commission. In January 1990, the Secretary of Health issued a permanent appointment to Dr. Mantala while also seeking reconsideration of the Board's decision. The Civil Service Commission's subsequent resolutions reflected a back-and-forth on the legality and merits of the appointments, with variance in rulings that ultimately favored Dr. Mantala's position.

Legal Proceedings and Jurisdictional Issues

Dr. Regino filed a quo warranto and mandamus action in the Regional Trial Court against Dr. Mantala and other officials, asserting her right to be appointed Division Chief. However, the Regional Trial Court's decision rendered on August 30, 1991, which annulled Dr. Mantala's appointment, was challenged on the grounds of jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the Regional Trial Court had no authority over personnel matters inherently within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission.

Review of the Regional Trial Court Decision

The Supreme Court found the August 30, 1991 decision of the Regional Trial Court to be fundamentally flawed and rendered without jurisdiction. It highlighted the nature of the Civil Service Commission as the central personnel agency of the government, specifically entrusted with administering civil service provisions, including appointment contests. It emphasized the commission's exclusive authority over grievances related

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.