G.R. No. 12635 - People vs. Reyes

Case Summary (G.R. No. 12635)

Administrative Absorption Measures and the Origin of the Mandamus

On January 27, 1998, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution No. 98-037, which provided guidelines in the disposition of petitions of former PC personnel seeking reappointment in the PNP. It directed that ex-PC personnel who had been discharged due to pending administrative or criminal cases but were later acquitted or whose cases were dismissed, and who then filed petitions for reinstatement not acted upon by the PNP, would be considered for absorption upon the promulgation of the resolution. On April 3, 1998, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution No. 98-105, affirming and confirming the absorption into the PNP effective January 27, 1998 of 126 ex-PC constables named in the list submitted by Director Edgar C. Galvante of the PNP Directorate for Personnel and Records Management (DPRM). Petitioners Sanchez and Meteoro appeared in the Galvante list, with Sanchez identified as number 45 and Meteoro as number 122.

Following these issuances, on May 28, 1998, NAPOLCOM Commissioner Rogelio A. Pureza sent a Memorandum to then Chief of the PNP Santiago Alino, directing the issuance of absorption orders for 45 PC constables included in the initial batch covered by the PNP Board Resolutions. Sanchez was identified as number 45 in that batch. As no absorption order had yet been issued by the Chief of the PNP, the constables requested assistance from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG). On July 29, 1998, the DILG Secretary’s Office endorsed the constables’ entreaties to respondent and requested feedback. Without any response and with their pleas still unacted upon, petitioners instituted a mandamus petition on September 30, 1998 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-35659.

The RTC’s Decision Granting Mandamus

While the mandamus case was pending, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution No. 99-061 on April 19, 1999, recalling Resolution No. 98-105. The recall was based on NAPOLCOM’s finding that the list submitted by Galvante did not actually consist of the constables whose absorption applications were already indorsed for approval. Instead, it supposedly included those whose applications were still subject to review, evaluation, and deliberation by the PNP Special Committee. On November 15, 2001, the RTC rendered its Decision granting the petition. It ruled in favor of petitioners and directed the Director-General of the PNP to immediately issue absorption orders to them. It also declared Resolution No. 99-061 void ab initio. On appeal, the Court of Appeals later reversed.

The Court of Appeals’ Reversal and Denial of Reconsideration

The Court of Appeals, in its June 18, 2003 Decision, reversed the RTC. It held that a writ of mandamus could not be issued because petitioners had failed to establish, with distinct clarity, their right to absorption into the PNP. It thus set aside the RTC ruling. The Court of Appeals later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a January 15, 2004 Resolution, prompting petitioners to seek relief before the Supreme Court via Rule 45.

Issues Raised and Petitioners’ Position

Petitioners raised three issues. First, whether they had a clear legal right to be absorbed into the PNP. Second, whether Resolution No. 99-061 was void for allegedly violating R.A. 7965 and the implementing NAPOLCOM resolutions, Resolution Nos. 98-037 and 98-105. Third, whether they had a cause of action for mandamus compelling respondent to absorb them into the PNP.

Mandamus as a Remedy: Clear Legal Right and Ministerial Duty

The Supreme Court reiterated settled doctrine that mandamus compels the performance of a duty that is ministerial in nature, not the performance of a discretionary act. The issuance of the writ functions as a command to execute an authority already possessed and a duty already imposed. It does not exist to secure an adjudication of a doubtful right. The Court stressed that mandamus issues only when the applicant’s legal right is clear and complete, meaning it is either indubitably granted by law or inferable as a matter of law, and when the respondent’s duty to perform the demanded act is imperative.

Citing Manila International Airport Authority v. Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners Association, Inc., the Court held that the essential requisites are a clear legal right on the part of the petitioner and an imperative duty on the part of the respondent. The writ will not issue when the right is questionable or substantially doubtful, since its principal function is to command and expedite rather than to inquire and adjudicate. In the Court’s view, the absence of an unclouded right is fatal to mandamus.

No Ministerial Duty to Issue Absorption Orders; Appointment Power as Discretion

Applying these standards, the Court held that respondent’s issuance of absorption orders was not compellable by mandamus because it did not involve performance of a ministerial duty. The Court noted that petitioners were discharged from the PC, later cleared, applied for reinstatement, and still did not receive action until the PC integration into the PNP in 1990 through R.A. No. 6975. For this reason, the Court stated that the matter could no longer be framed as reinstatement to the service because the PC no longer existed. It involved petitioners’ employment in the PNP, which the Court characterized as technically a new appointment. Relying on Gloria v. De Guzman, the Court emphasized that the power to appoint is essentially discretionary on the officer vested with it, subject only to the condition that the appointee possesses the legal qualifications. For that reason alone, the Court ruled that mandamus could not be used to compel appointment-related action.

Petitioners’ Alleged Right Could Not Be Anchored on NAPOLCOM Resolutions

The Court further held that petitioners lacked a clear legal right even if one were sought to be derived from NAPOLCOM Resolutions No. 98-037 and 98-105. The Court explained that R.A. No. 6975 vested the power to appoint PNP personnel with the rank of “Police Officer I” to “Senior Police Officer IV” in specified PNP officials, namely the PNP regional director for regional personnel or the Chief of the PNP for national headquarters personnel, subject to Civil Service Commission attestation, as shown in Section 31(a), R.A. No. 6975. Accordingly, the Court concluded that NAPOLCOM did not hold the appointment power that petitioners sought to compel.

Mootness Through the Recall of Resolution No. 98-105 and the RTC’s Error in Treating It as Void

Even assuming petitioners could derive some right from the earlier NAPOLCOM resolutions, the Court held that their mandamus petition had become moot. It pointed to the intervening issuance by NAPOLCOM of Resolution No. 99-061, recalling the approval of petitioners’ absorption. On that basis, the Court stated that the RTC should have dismissed the mandamus petition when the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) submitted a copy of Resolution No. 99-061, because courts do not resolve moot questions. The Court also found erroneous the RTC’s declaration that Resolution No. 99-061 was void ab initio.

The Court underscored a procedural defect: in the m

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 12635)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Petitioners Ex-C1C Jimmy B. Sanchez and Ex-C2C Salvador A. Meteoro filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioners assailed the June 18, 2003 Decision and the January 15, 2004 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 68989.
Petitioners sought judicial relief after the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City granted their mandamus petition on November 15, 2001.
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and dismissed the ground for mandamus, and it later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
The Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals.

Key Factual Background

Petitioner Sanchez was a constable in the Philippine Constabulary (PC) and was discharged in 1989 for allegedly losing his service firearm.
Petitioner Meteoro was also a constable and was discharged in 1990 for being absent without leave.
On appeal, both petitioners were cleared of all charges.
Petitioners applied for reinstatement, but their applications were not acted upon even after the integration of the PC into the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 1990.
On January 27, 1998, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution No. 98-037 to consider as absorbed into the police force certain former PC personnel whose administrative or criminal cases had ended in acquittal or dismissal, and whose petitions for reinstatement had not been acted upon.
On April 3, 1998, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution No. 98-105, affirming and confirming absorption into the PNP effective January 27, 1998, of 126 ex-PC constables listed from the list submitted by Director Edgar C. Galvante of the PNP Directorate for Personnel and Records Management (DPRM).
Petitioners were identified on the Galvante list as number 90 (Meteoro) and number 122 (Sanchez).
On May 28, 1998, NAPOLCOM Commissioner Rogelio A. Pureza issued a Memorandum to the then Chief of the PNP for the issuance of absorption orders to 45 PC constables in the initial batch covered by the PNP Board Resolutions.
Petitioner Sanchez was in number 45 of that memorandum list.
Since no absorption order had yet been issued by the Chief of the PNP, the constables in the list requested assistance from the Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).
On July 29, 1998, the DILG Secretary’s Office sent a memorandum to respondent Roberto T. Lastimoso for feedback, but respondent did not respond and the absorption orders remained unacted upon.
Petitioners filed a mandamus petition on September 30, 1998, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-98-35659 in the RTC of Quezon City.
During the pendency of the mandamus case, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution No. 99-061 on April 19, 1999, recalling Resolution No. 98-105.
The recall was premised on NAPOLCOM’s finding that Galvante’s submitted list was not actually the list of constables whose absorption had been indorsed for approval, but instead included those whose applications were still to be reviewed, evaluated, and disposed of by the PNP Special Committee.
On November 15, 2001, the RTC declared Resolution No. 99-061 void ab initio and directed respondent to issue absorption orders to petitioners.

Mandamus and Tribunal Decisions

The RTC held that mandamus lay and ordered the PNP Chief to issue absorption orders to petitioners, while declaring Resolution No. 99-061 void ab initio.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that a writ of mandamus could not issue because petitioners failed to establish a clear legal right to absorption into the PNP.
The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the RTC decision.
The Court of Appeals later denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in a January 15, 2004 Resolution.
Before the Supreme Court, petitioners raised three issues centered on (a) entitlement to a clear legal right, (b) the alleged invalidity of Resolution No. 99-061, and (c) existence of cause of action for mandamus.

Issues Presented

The first issue asked whether petitioners had a clear legal right to be absorbed into the PNP.
The second issue asked whether Resolution No. 99-061 was void for violating R.A. 7965 and its implementing NAPOLCOM resolutions 98-037 and 98-105.
The third issue asked whether petitioners had a cause of action for mandamus to compel respondent to absorb them into the PNP.

Statutory and Doctrinal Framework

The Court reiterated that mandamus compels the performance of a ministerial duty and does not lie to compel performance of a discretionary duty.
T