Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila FIRST DIVISION G.R. No.

L-54554 March 30, 1981 EUSTAQUIO M. ME ALLA, !R., petitioner, vs. T"E "ONORA#LE MARCELINO N. SA$O, !%&'( o) *h( C+I o) R,-a., #ra/ch 000III a/& "ONORATO G. MAC1A$, ac*,/' "o23,*a. A&4,/,2*ra*or o) *h( Ca.ooca/ C,*5 G(/(ra. "o23,*a. a/& *h( CIT$ MA$OR O+ CALOOCAN, respondents.

MELENCIO-"ERRERA, J.: In this Petition for !ertiorari, "anda"us and Prohibition , see#in$ the dis"issal of !ivil !ase No. !%&&&' belo(, (e have, as factual bac#$round, the follo(in$) Petitioner, Dr. *usta+uio M. Medalla, ,r., is the !hief of !linics of the !aloocan !it- .eneral /ospital, !aloocan !it-. Private respondent,, Dr. /onorato .. Mac#a- (as the Resident Ph-sician thereat. 0hen the position of 1ssistant, hospital 1d"inistrator of the !aloocan !it- .eneral /ospital beca"e vacant upon the resi$nation of the incu"bent, for"er !aloocan !it- Ma-or 1le2andro 1. Fider desi$nated and subse+uentl- appointed, as 1ssistant /ospital 1d"inistrator private respondent Dr. Mac#a-, a Resident Ph-sician in said hospital. Petitioner, Dr. Medalla, ,r., protested Dr. Mac#a-3s desi$nation and subse+uent appoint"ent alle$in$ a"on$ others that, as !hief of !linics, he 4Medalla5 (as ne6t%in%ran#. The then 1ctin$ !it- Ma-or Vir$ilio P. Robles, (ho succeeded for"er Ma-or, no( 1sse"bl-"an 1le2andro 1. Fider, in his 7th Indorse"ent dated Septe"ber 8', 9:&;, sustained Mac#a-3s appoint"ent statin$) ... as of 1pril 9;, 9:&; (hen Dr. /onorato .. Mac#a- (as pro"oted to 1ssistant /ospital 1d"inistrator fro" his previous position of Resident Ph-sician, he (as ne6t in ran# to the said hi$her position b- reason of his havin$ co"pleted all acade"ic re+uire"ents for the !ertificate in /ospital 1d"inistration ... contrar- to the clai" of Dr. *usta+uio Medalla, ,r. in his letter of Ma- 8, 9:&;. 666 666 666 Dissatisfied, Medalla elevated his case to the !ivil Service !o""ission on appeal. On Dece"ber 8:, 9:&;, the !ivil Service Merit S-ste"s <oard issued Resolution No. 7: sustainin$ Medalla3s appeal and revo#in$ Mac#a-3s appoint"ent as 1ssistant /ospital 1d"inistrator. The pertinent portion of the aforestated Resolution reads) 1 perusal of the records sho(s that appellant Medalla is the !hief of !linics of the !aloocan !it- .eneral /ospital= he is a holder of the De$ree of Doctor of Medicine= he has co"pleted the re+uire"ents in /ospital 1d"inistration and is reco""ended for the title of !ertificate in /ospital 1d"inistration= he is also a candidate of a Masters de$ree in /ospital 1d"inistration /e possesses the First .rade eli$ibilit- 4<1 9';'5 and had under$one relevant trainin$ in /ospital 1d"inistration. /is perfor"ance ratin$ is 3Ver- Satisfactor-3.

On the other hand, appellee Mac#a- had been a Resident Ph-sician, the position he held prior to his pro"otion to the contested position. /e is a holder of the de$ree of Doctor of Medicine and is a First .rade eli$ible 4<1 9';'%Medical <oard5. /e is a $raduate student in /ospital 1d"inistration and as co"pleted all acade"ic re+uire"ents for a certificate in /ospital 1d"inistration. /is perfor"ance ratin$ is Ver- Satisfactor- . 1 perusal of the or$ani>ational chart of the Ospital n$ !aloocan approved b- the /ospital 1d"inistrator (ould sho( that the !hief of !linics is the ne6t lo(er position to the 1ssistant /ospital 1d"inistrator. The Resident Ph-sician is not a ne6t lo(er position to the 1ssistant /ospital 1d"inistrator. Therefore, Medalla and not Mac#a- is the person ne6t in ran# (ho "a- be pro"oted to the position involved.
Moreover, even on the basis of co"petence and +ualifications to perfor" the duties of the position, the records sho( that Dr. Medalla is "ore co"petent and +ualified than Dr. Mac#a-. The +ualification relied upon b- the 1ctin$ !it- Ma-or in 2ustif-in$ the appoint"ent of Dr. Mac#a- (hich is his havin$ co"pleted the acade"ic re+uire"ents for the !ertificate in /ospital 1d"inistration does not $ive Dr. Mac#athe advanta$e inas"uch as Dr. Medalla has also co"pleted the acade"ic re+uire"ents for a certificate in /ospital 1d"inistration and is reco""ended for a title of !ertificate in /ospital 1d"inistration apart fro" bein$ also a candidate for a Masters de$ree in /ospital 1d"inistration. 1

666 666 666 ?pon auto"atic revie( b- the Office of the President, pursuant to section 9:4@5, PD No. ;'&, Presidential *6ecutive 1ssistant ,acobo !. !lave rendered a Decision on 1pril 87, 9:&: declarin$ that)
0/*R*FOR*, pre"ises considered, and as reco""ended b- !ivil Service !o""ission, the appoint"ent of Dr. /onorato .. Mac#a- as 1ssistant /ospital 1d"inistrator in the !aloocan !it- .eneral /ospital is hereb- revo#ed and the position a(arded in favor of appellant Dr. *usta+uio M. Medalla. 6

The 1ctin$ !it- Ma-or, on behalf of Mac#a-, "oved for reconsideration. On Ma- &, 9:&:, totall- disre$ardin$ the Decision of the Office of the President, the sa"e 1ctin$ !it- Ma-or appointed Mac#a-, this ti"e as /ospital 1d"inistrator, and desi$nated Dr. Tantoco as his 1ssistant, thereb- a$ain co"pletel- b-passin$ Medalla. Mac#a- too# his oath of office on Ma- &, 9:&:. On ,une 8&, 9:&:, ho(ever, the !ivil Service !o""ission, actin$ on Medalla3s protest, and besides callin$ attention to the penal provision of P.D. No. ;'&, disapproved Mac#a-3s appoint"ent as follo(s)
0herefore, pre"ises considered and findin$ the protest of Dr. Medalla in order, the appoint"ent of Dr. Mac#a- as hospital 1d"inistrator at P8@,A;; per annu" effective Ma- &, 9:&: is hereb- disapproved. it is hereb- ordered that Dr. Medalla be appointed to the position of /ospital 1d"inistrator of the !aloocan !it- .eneral /ospital. 3

On ,ul- 8', 9:&:, Mac#a- "oved for reconsideration assertin$ 95 denial of due process of la( inas"uch as the contested ResolutionBDecisions (ere issued e6%parte, and 85 that the !ivil Service !o""ission can not i$nore nor overrule an appoint"ent "ade b- a !it- *6ecutive.

0ithout a(aitin$ the resolution of his Motion for !onsideration% Mac#a- filed, on ,ul- 8A, 9:&:, before tile !ourt of First Instance of Ri>al, !aloocan !it-, presided b- respondent, ,ud$e, a Petition for !ertiorari, Prohibition and "anda"us (ith Preli"inar- In2unction and Da"a$es civil !ase No. !&&&'5 a$ainst /on. ,acobo !lave, the !ivil Service !o""ission, the 1ctin$ !itMa-or, the !it- Treasurer, and Medalla, pra-in$ that said respondents be restrained fro" i"ple"entin$ the Decision of /on. ,acobo !lave of 1pril 87, 9:&:, the Resolution No. 7: of the Merit S-ste"s <oard dated Dece"ber 8:, 9:&;, and the Decision of the !ivil Service !o""ission of ,une 8&, 9:&:. The !ourt a +uo issued the Restrainin$ Order pra-ed for on ,ul8C, 9:&: en2oinin$ i"ple"entation of the aforestated ResolutionBDecisions. On 1u$ust 8, 9:&:, Medalla "oved to dissolve the Restrainin$ Order and to dis"iss the Petition alle$in$ "ainl- that Mac#a- had not e6hausted his ad"inistrative re"edies and that the latter3s ri$ht to a 0rit of Preli"inar- In2unction (as not onl- dubious or debatable but (as clearl- non% e6istent. /on. ,acobo !lave and the !ivil Service !o""ission li#e(ise filed a Motion to Dis"iss on the sa"e $round of failure to e6haust ad"inistrative re"edies. On 1u$ust 9A, 9:&:, Mac#a- "oved to suspend proceedin$s pendin$ final resolution b- the !ivil Service !o""ission of his Motion for the reconsideration of the Decision of said !o""ission dated ,une 8&, 9:&:. On Septe"ber 87, 9:&:, the Trial !ourt denied both Motions to Dis"iss filed b- Medalla, on the one hand, and /on. !lave and the !ivil Service !o""ission, on the other, holdin$ that Mac#a-3s failure to a(ait resolution of his Motions for Reconsideration pendin$ before the Office of the President and the !ivil Service !o""ission did not deprive hi" of a cause of action besides the fact that accordin$ to the respective Manifestations of the said Offices, the Motions for Reconsideration had alread- been resolved adversel- a$ainst Mac#a-. 1ctin$ on Medalla3s Motion for Reconsideration thereof as (ell as his Motion to Dift Restrainin$ Order, the !ourt a +uo, in its Order of ,ul- 9C, 9:;', denied reconsideration but lifted the Restrainin$ Order there bein$ no sho(in$ that petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a 0rit of Preli"inar- In2unction. Respondent ,ud$e then set the case for hearin$. 1t this 2uncture, Medalla instituted this Petition before us pra-in$ that the !ourt a +uo be restrained fro" proceedin$ (ith the hearin$ and that 2ud$"ent be rendered as follo(s) 9. Orderin$ the /onorable Marcelino N. Sa-o, ,ud$e of the !ourt of First Instance of Ri>al <ranch EEEIII, !aloocan !it-, to dis"iss respondent Mac#a-3s petitions, on the $round of lac# of 2urisdiction andBor non% e6haustion of ad"inistrative re"edies resultin$ to a lac# of cause of action=
8. Declarin$ the decision of the Office of the President 41nne6 ! 5 and the Merit S-ste"s <oard 41nne6 * 5 as valid and enforceable. 4

0e issued a Restrainin$ Order on 1u$ust 8&, 9:;' en2oinin$ respondents fro" proceedin$ (ith the case belo(. On Nove"ber &, 9:;', (e re+uired petitioner Medalla to i"plead the Ma-or of !aloocan !it- as part-%respondent, and the latter to co""ent on the Petition and to state (hether he is read- to issue an appoint"ent to Medalla as /ospital 1d"inistrator, Medalla3s ri$hts thereto havin$ been upheld b- the !ivil Service Merit S-ste"s <oard and b- the Office of the President. In his !o"pliance, Medalla included an additional pra-er that the !it- Ma-or of !aloocan be ordered to i""ediatel- appoint hi" as /ospital 1d"inistrator and to pa- hi" salar- differentials.

In his !o""ent, the !it- Ma-or of !aloocan invo#ed the privile$e of an appointin$ authorit- to deter"ine (ho can best fulfill the functions of an office citin$ the case of Aguilar vs. Nieva, Jr. 5 to that effect. 1nd as to the "atter of his readiness to issue an appoint"ent to Medalla, he "anifested his preference to (ithhold action pendin$ Mac#a-3s unresolved Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of ,une 8&, 9:&: of the !ivil Service Merit S-ste"s <oard. Petitioner Medalla sub"its that the Trial !ourt erred in not dis"issin$ Mac#a-3s Petition before it, there bein$ a clear sho(in$ of non%e6haustion of ad"inistrative re"edies, and that said !ourt (as devoid of 2urisdiction in revie(in$ on certiorari decisions of the Office of the President and of the !ivil service !o""ission rendered in the e6ercise of their +uasi%2udicial functions. Private respondent Mac#a- ta#es the contrar- vie( and pra-s, instead, that the contested DecisionsBResolution be declared null and void and respondent ,ud$e ordered to proceed (ith the hearin$ of the case belo(. 1lthou$h Mac#a-3s Motions for Reconsideration (ere, in fact, still pendin$ resolution b- /on. ,acobo !. !lave and the !ivil Service !o""ission, respectivel-, at the ti"e private respondent Mac#a- filed the Petition belo(, dis"issal of said Petition can no lon$er be anchored on the $round of non%e6haustion of ad"inistrative re"edies, as Medalla pra-s, considerin$ that Manifestations dated 1u$ust 9& and 8A, 9:&: filed b- the said parties before the !ourt a +uo sho( that the- had resolved the incidents adversel- a$ainst Mac#a-. 7 That issue, therefore, has beco"e "oot and acade"ic. In so far as 2urisdiction of the !ourt belo( to revie( b- certiorari decisions andBor resolutions of the !ivil Service !o""ission and of the Presidential *6ecutive 1ssistant is concerned, there should be no +uestion but that the po(er of 2udicial revie( should be upheld. The follo(in$ rulin$s buttress this conclusion)
The ob2ection to a 2udicial revie( of a Presidential act arises fro" a failure to reco$ni>e the "ost i"portant principle in our s-ste" of $overn"ent, i.e., the separation of po(ers into three coe+ual depart"ents, the e6ecutive, the le$islative and the 2udicial, each supre"e (ithin its o(n assi$ned po(ers and duties. 0hen a presidential act is challen$ed before the courts of 2ustice, it is not to be i"plied therefro" that the *6ecutive is bein$ "ade sub2ect and subordinate to the courts. The le$alit- of his acts are under 2udicial revie(, not because the *6ecutive is inferior to the courts, but because the la( is above the !hief *6ecutive hi"self, and the courts see# onl- to interpret, appl- or i"ple"ent it 4the la(5. 1 2udicial revie( of the President3s decision on a case of an e"plo-ee decided b- the !ivil Service <oard of 1ppeals should be vie(ed in this li$ht and the brin$in$ of the case to the !ourts should be $overned b- the sa"e principles as $overn the 2udicial revie( of all ad"inistrative acts of all ad"inistrative officers. 8 The courts "a- al(a-s e6a"ine into the e6ercise of po(er b- a "inisterial officer to the e6tent of deter"inin$ (hether the particular po(er has been $ranted to the officer, (hether it is a le$al po(er that could have been $ranted to hi", and (hether it has been e6ercised in a le$al "anner. This 2urisdiction does not depend upon an act of the le$islature authori>in$ it, but inheres in the courts of general jurisdiction as an essential function of the judicial department 4State Racin$ !o""ission v. Datonia 1$ri. 1sso. 98A S0 @; 95. 8 4e"phasis supplied5.

For the speed- deter"ination of the controvers-, ho(ever, and considerin$ that the position involved is infused (ith public interest, rather than re"and the case to the !ourt belo( for further proceedin$s, (e hold that $rave abuse of discretion on the part of /on. ,acobo !. !lave and the !ivil Service Merit S-ste"s <oard is absent. To start (ith, under the Revised !harter of the !it- of !aloocan R1 No. CC'85, it is clear that the po(er of appoint"ent b- the !it- Ma-or of heads of offices entirel- paid out of cit- funds

is subject to Civil Service law, rules and regulations 4ibid., section 9:5. The !aloocan !it.eneral /ospital is one of the cit- depart"ents provided for in the said la( 4 ibid., sec. 9&5. The /ospital 1d"inistrator is appointed b- the !it- Ma-or 4ibid., section @@%<5. The /ospital 1d"inistrator is the head of the !it- .eneral /ospital e"po(ered to ad"inister, direct, and coordinate all activities of the hospital to carr- out its ob2ectives as to the care of the sic# and the in2ured 4ibid.5. ?nder section 9: 4A5 of the !ivil Service Decree 4PD No. ;'&, effective on October @, 9:&C5, the recruit"ent or selection of e"plo-ees for pro"otions is dra(n fro" the ne6t%in%ran#. S*!. 9:. Recruit"ent and Selection of *"plo-ees. F 666 666 666 4A5 0hen a vacanc- occurs in a position in the second level of the !areer Service as defined in Section &, the e"plo-ees in the $overn"ent service (ho occupthe ne6t lo(er positions i the occupational $roup under (hich the vacant position is classified and in other functionall- related occupational $roups and (ho are co"petent, +ualified and (ith the appropriate civil service eli$ibilit- shall be considered for pro"otion. Section 9: 4@5 of the sa"e Decree provides for the ad"inistrative procedure b- an a$$rieved e"plo-ee in case of non%observance b- the appointin$ authorit- of the ne6t%in%ran# rule, thus) Sec. 9:4@5 1 +ualified ne6t%in%ran# e"plo-ee shall have the ri$ht to appeal initiall-, to the depart"ent head and finall- to the Office of the President an appoint"ent "ade ... 48. in favor of one (ho is not ne6t%in%ran#, ... if the e"plo-ee "a#in$ the appeal is not satisfied (ith the (ritten special reason or reasons $iven b- the appointin$ authorit- for such appoint"ent) ... <efore decidin$ a contested appoint"ent the Office of the President shall consult the !ivil Service !o""ission. For purposes of this Section, .+ualified ne6t%in%ran#3 refers to an e"plo-ee appointed on a per"anent basis to a position previousldeter"ined to be ne6t%in% ran# to the vacanc- proposed to be filled and (ho "eets the re+uisites for appoint"ent thereto as previousl- deter"ined b- the appointin$ authorit- and approved b- the !o""ission. The prescribed procedure has been follo(ed b- petitioner Medalla /e had appealed to the depart"ent head and fro" thence, in vie( of the latter3s unfavorable action, to the !ivil Service !o""ission and thereafter to the Office of the President. Resolution No. 7: of the !ivil Service Merit S-ste"s <oard its Decision of ,une 8&, 9:&:, and the Decision of the presidential *6ecutive 1ssistant dated 1pril 87, 9:&:, (ere all rendered in Medalla3s favor. The special reason $iven b- the 1ctin$ !it- Ma-or for Mac#a-3s appoint"ent, (hich is, that lie had co"pleted all acade"ic re+uire"ents for the !ertificate of /ospital 1d"inistration, is not tenable, since Medalla hi"self (as found to be in possession of the sa"e +ualification. <ut (hile the +ualifications of both petitioner Medalla and private respondent Mac#a- are at par, -et, it is clear that the position of !hief of !linics is the ne6t lo(er position to I hospital 1d"inistrator under the or$ani>ational line%up of the hospital. !onse+uentl-, at the ti"e of Mac#a-s appoint"ent as 1ssistant /ospital 1d"inistrator and subse+uentl- hospital 1d"inistrator, Medalla outran#ed Mac#a- (ho (as onl- a Resident Ph-sician and, therefore, as the ne6t%in ran#, Medalla is entitled to appoint"ent as /ospital 1d"inistrator. Respondent Mac#a-3s ur$in$ that he (as denied due process deserves scant consideration considerin$ that subse+uent develops"ents in the case establish that he (as heardon his Motions for Reconsideration b- both the !ivil Service !o""ission and the office of the President.

It is true that, as the respondent !it- Ma-or alle$es, a local e6ecutive should be allo(ed the choice of "en of his confidence, provided the- are +ualified and elli$ible, (ho in his best esti"ation are possesses of the re+uisite reputation, inte$rit-, #no(led$eabilit-, ener$- and 2ud$e"ent. 9 /o(ever, as reproduced heretofore, the Decision of the !ivil Service Merit S-ste"s <oard, upheld b- the Office of the President, contains a 2udicious assess"ent of the +ualifications of both petitioner Medalla and private respondent Mac#a- for the contested position, revealin$ a careful stud- of the controvers- bet(een the parties, (hich cannot be i$nored. The revocation of Mac#a-3s appoint"ent reveals no arbitrariness nor $rave abuse of discretion. 0/*R*FOR*, 95 the appoint"ent e6tended to private respondent, Dr. /onorato !. Mac#a-, as /ospital 1d"inistrator is hereb- declared null and void= 85 respondent !it- Ma-or of !aloocan !it- is hereb- ordered to e6tend an appoint"ent to petitioner, Dr. *usta+uio M. Medalla, as /ospital 1d"inistrator of the !aloocan !it- .eneral /ospital i""ediatel- upon notice of this Decision= A5 petitioner, Dr. *usta+uio M. Medalla, shall receive all co"pensation and e"olu"ents appertainin$ to said position thenceforth, but (ithout entitle"ent to salardifferentials= and 75 respondent ,ud$e is hereb- per"anentl- en2oined fro" further proceedin$ (ith !ivil !ase No. &&&'. This Decision is i""ediatel- e6ecutor-. No costs. SO ORD*R*D. Teehankee Chairman!, "akasiar, #ernande$ and %uerrero, JJ., concur,.

+oo*/o*(2 9 pp. 98%9A, Rollo. 8 1nne6 ! , p. 9@. &bid. A p. 8', &bid. 7 p. :, &bid. C 7' S!R1 99A. @ see Order, Septe"ber 87, 9:&:, p. 79, Rollo. & Montes vs. !ivil Service <oard of 1ppeals, et al., 9'9 Phil. 7:', 7:8%7:A 49:C&5. ; 8 1". ,ur. 8d, 1d"inistrative Da( C@@ p. A&:. : !laudio vs. Subido. 7' S!R1 A;949:&95.