You are on page 1of 2

DE CASTRO v.

CARLOS However, the President appointed respondent as the new AGMO of the
G.R. No. 194944 / APR 16, 2013 / SERENO, C.J./CIV PRO-HEIRARCHY OF MMDA effective January 4, 2011.
COURTS/AJLCARDEO Petitioner then filed this present petition for issuance of writ of quo
NATURE Petition for the issuance of a writ of quo warranto under warranto to the SC, arguing that Sec. 2(3) of Art. IX(B) of the 1987
Rule 66 Constitution guarantees the security of tenure of employees in the civil
PETITIONERS Emmanuel A. De Castro service.
RESPONDENTS Emerson S. Carlos Respondent argues otherwise, and maintains that petitioner violated
the doctrine of hierarchy of court when he resorted directly to the
SUMMARY. De Castro (petitioner) was appointed as Assistant General Court.
Manager I at the MMDA by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. With the onset of the
Aquino administration, Carlos (respondent) was appointed as OIC of the ISSUES & RATIO.
AGMO and De Castros name was removed from the MMDA payroll. De 1. WON petitioner De Castro is entitled to the position of AGMO. -
Castro demanded for his reinstatement thru a letter addressed to Aquino. NO
However, Aquino appointed Carlos as the new AGMO. De Castro then
petitioned to the SC. Carlos argues that De Castro violated the doctrine of For the procedural issue, petitioner submits that a direct recourse to the SC
hierarchy of court when he resorted directly to the Court. is warranted by the urgent demands of public interest, particularly the
veritable need for stability in the civil service and the protection of the
DOCTRINE. The Supreme Court is a court of last resort and must so rights of civil servants, and considering that no other than the President of
remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it by the the Philippines is the appointing authority.
fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. A disregard of the doctrine
of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of a In this case, the petitioners excuses are not special and important
petition. A direct invocation of the Supreme Courts jurisdiction is allowed circumstances that would allow a direct recourse to the SC.
only when there are special and important reasons that are clearly and
specifically set forth in a petition. Although Sec. 5(1) of Art. VIII of the 1987 A direct invocation of the SCs jurisdiction is allowed only when there are
Constitution explicitly provides that the Supreme Court has original special and important reasons that are clearly and specifically set forth in a
jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo petition. The rationale behind this policy arises from the necessity of
warranto, and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of the SC is not exclusive but preventing (1) inordinate demands upon the time and attention of the SC,
is concurrent with that of the CA and RTC and does not give petitioner which is better devoted to those matters within its exclusive jurisdiction;
unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. and (2) further overcrowding of the SCs docket.

FACTS. Although Sec. 5(1) of Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides
Emmanuel A. De Castro (petitioner) was appointed as Assistant that the SC has original jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari, prohibition,
General Manager I (AGMO I) at the Metropolitan Manila Development mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, the jurisdiction of the SC is
Authority (MMDA) on July 29, 2009 by then President Gloria Macapagal- not exclusive but is concurrent with that of the CA and RTC and does not
Arroyo. give petitioner unrestricted freedom of choice of court forum. The
With the onset of the Aquino administration, Executive Secretary hierarchy of courts must be strictly observed.
Paquito Ochoa issued Office of the President (OP) Memorandum
Circular No. 2 Series of 2010, amending OP MC No. 1, Series of 2010, Settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is a court of last resort and
which directed all non-Career Executive Service Officials (non-CESO) to must so remain if it is to satisfactorily perform the functions assigned to it
continue to discharge their office until October 31, 2011 or until their by the fundamental charter and immemorial tradition. A disregard of the
resignations have been accepted and/or their respective replacements doctrine of hierarchy of courts warrants, as a rule, the outright dismissal of
appointed or designated. a petition.
On November 2, 2010, Emerson Carlos (respondent) was appointed as
OIC of the AGMO, citing OP Memorandum Circular No. 2 Series of 2010. DECISION.
Since then, petitioners name was removed from the MMDA payroll and Petition Denied.
he no longer received his salary effective November 2010.
Seeking reinstatement, and declining an offer to become Director IV of NOTES [Substantive Aspect].
the MMDA Public Health and Safety Services, petitioner made a formal
Even assuming that petitioners direct resort to the SC is permissible, the
demand for his reinstatement thru a letter addressed to the Office of
Petition must still be dismissed for lack of merit.
the President.
performance of executive and managerial functions.
We consider the following factors on why AGMO is covered by CES: First, an
AGMO is a career position that enjoys security of tenure by virtue of the In sum, the petitioner lacked of cause of action because he lacked CES
MMDA Charter. Second, the position of AGMO is above the division chief eligibility in a CES position.
level, which is equivalent to the rank of assistant secretary with Salary
Grade 29. Third, the MMDA Charter states that the AGMO requires the