Collantes vs. Court of Appeals

A CESO who voluntarily resigns from a position is deemed separated from the government service, which deactivates the CES rank, and cannot claim constructive dismissal or compel the appointing authority to assign him to another position. When two conflicting final and executory judgments exist, the Court may resolve the case on the merits anew rather than strictly applying the immutability doctrine, to avoid absurdity and undue delay.

Nelson P. Collantes held Career Executive Service Eligibility and was accorded CESO Rank II. Appointed DILG Undersecretary, he relinquished his post at the behest of the new administration. He was subsequently appointed DND Undersecretary for Civilian Relations but was again asked to resign to yield the position to another appointee. Collantes resigned, expecting a new assignment, but was instead terminated by the President. He then sought assistance from the Career Executive Service Board (CESB) and filed a Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus with the Court of Appeals, leading to conflicting rulings from the CSC and the CA.

• Career Service and Appointments: Collantes was conferred Career Executive Service Eligibility and CESO Rank II. Appointed DILG Undersecretary, he yielded the post upon the request of persons close to President Estrada. He was then appointed DND Undersecretary for Civilian Relations.
• Second Resignation and Termination: DND Secretary Mercado asked Collantes to renounce his post for another presidential appointee. Collantes resigned in deference to the President's prerogative, expecting a new assignment. Instead, President Estrada terminated his services effective February 8, 1999.
• Agency and Court Actions: Collantes requested assistance from the CESB, which referred the matter to the CSC. Simultaneously, Collantes filed a Petition for Quo Warranto and Mandamus with the CA, alleging constructive dismissal. The CSC issued Resolution No. 011364 finding illegal dismissal, while the CA dismissed the petition, holding Collantes effectively resigned.
• Conflicting Final Judgments: Collantes withdrew his appeal to the Supreme Court, making the CA decision final. He then moved for execution of the CSC Resolution, which the CSC granted. The DND pointed out the conflict, prompting the CSC to reverse its own resolution and align with the CA. Collantes elevated the CSC's reversal to the CA, which dismissed the petition, leading to the present Supreme Court review.

• Immutability of CSC Resolution: Petitioner argued that the CSC Resolution declaring illegal dismissal attained finality and was even ordered executed; reversing it violated the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.
• Due Process Violation: Petitioner maintained that the CSC reversed its final resolution based on a mere letter from DND, without proper notice or motion, violating procedural due process.
• Distinction Between Position and Rank: Petitioner argued that resigning from the DND Undersecretary position did not equate to resigning from his CESO rank; security of tenure for CESOs pertains to rank, not position, thus he is entitled to a position equivalent to his rank.
• Constructive Dismissal: Petitioner claimed that removing a CESO from a position without a concomitant transfer to an equivalent rank constitutes constructive dismissal and violates security of tenure.

• Immutability of CA Decision: Respondents countered that the CA decision dismissing the Quo Warranto petition attained finality when petitioner withdrew his appeal to the Supreme Court.
• Forum Shopping: Respondents argued that petitioner engaged in forum shopping by allowing the CSC to rule on his request while simultaneously pursuing the petition in the CA, resulting in conflicting final judgments.

• Conflicting Final Judgments: Which of the two conflicting final and executory decisions—the CSC Resolution or the CA Decision—should prevail?
• Forum Shopping: Whether petitioner engaged in forum shopping by pursuing remedies in both the CSC and the CA.
• Security of Tenure of CESO: Whether petitioner was constructively dismissed and whether resigning from a position deactivates a CESO rank, entitling him to appointment to another position.

• Conflicting Final Judgments: The case was resolved on the merits anew. While jurisprudence offers varying solutions (allowing claims anew, prioritizing the judgment first in time, or prioritizing the court of last resort), resolving the merits directly was deemed appropriate because all facts and arguments were already before the Court and a remand would cause unnecessary delay.
• Forum Shopping: Forum shopping was established. Petitioner knew his CESB request was referred to the CSC for adjudication but still pursued the CA petition. He then sought execution of the favorable CSC resolution while abandoning the unfavorable CA forum, violating his certification against forum shopping.
• Security of Tenure of CESO: Petitioner was not constructively dismissed; he voluntarily resigned. A courtesy resignation is as effectual as any other resignation. Resigning from a position constitutes separation from government service, which deactivates the CES rank. A CESO cannot compel the President to appoint him to another position after resigning, as this would derogate the discretion of the appointing authority.

• Immutability of Final Judgments — A final judgment may no longer be modified, even to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law. Applied to show the absurdity of having two immutable but conflicting judgments, prompting a resolution on the merits.
• Forum Shopping — The vexation caused by asking different courts or agencies to rule on the same or related causes, creating the possibility of conflicting decisions. Elements: (a) identity of parties or interests; (b) identity of rights asserted and reliefs prayed for; (c) identity such that any judgment amounts to res judicata. Applied to find that petitioner knowingly maintained simultaneous proceedings in the CSC and CA.
• Security of Tenure of CESOs — Security of tenure for members of the CES pertains to rank, not to the specific position to which they may be appointed. However, resigning from a position deactivates the CES rank, as separation from government service is a mode of deactivating rank. Applied to rule that petitioner lost his rank and rights upon resigning from his position.
• Courtesy Resignation — A resignation tendered out of courtesy to the appointing authority has the same legal effect as any other resignation and does not create an obligation to appoint the resigning officer to another position.

• "A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable. A final judgment may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law; and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court in the land."
• "While there is indeed a distinction between position and rank, such that a CESO may be transferred or reassigned from one position to another without losing his rank, there can be no distinction between resigning from a position and resigning from a rank. The rank of a CESO is deactivated upon separation from the government service, which includes the resignation of a CESO from his position."
• "There are no special legal effects when a resignation is one of a courtesy resignation. The mere fact that the President, by himself or through another, requested for someone’s resignation does not give the President the obligation to appoint such person to another position. A courtesy resignation is just as effectual as any other resignation."

• Ramos v. Ramos, 447 Phil. 114 (2003) — Cited for the doctrine of immutability of final judgments.
• Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corporation v. United Coconut Planters Bank, 427 SCRA 585 (2004) — Cited for the elements of forum shopping.
• Cuevas v. Bacal, 347 SCRA 338 (2000) — Cited for the principle that security of tenure of CES members pertains to rank, not position. Distinguished in application because resignation deactivates rank.
• General v. Roco, 350 SCRA 528 (2001) — Cited for the mobility and flexibility feature of CES and that security of tenure pertains to rank. Distinguished in application.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs the mode of appeal (Petition for Review on Certiorari) by which the case reached the Supreme Court.
• Section 5, Rule 7, Rules of Court — Requires certification against forum shopping and imposes a duty to report the filing of a similar action within five days of knowledge thereof. Petitioner violated paragraph (c) of this rule.
• Article 1409(4), Civil Code — Declares void agreements whose object is outside the commerce of man. Applied to invalidate any express promise of another position made in exchange for a courtesy resignation.
• CESB Resolution No. 554, series of 2002 — Defines "CESO in Inactive Status" and enumerates the modes of deactivating a CES rank, including separation from government service. Applied to show that petitioner's rank was deactivated upon his resignation.

Reynato S. Puno, Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Renato C. Corona, Adolfo S. Azcuna, Dante O. Tinga, Cancio C. Garcia, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura. (Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez took no part; Conchita Carpio Morales and Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. were on leave).