Sanchez vs. Lastimoso

Mandamus lies only to compel a clear, complete, and unclouded ministerial duty corresponding to a clear legal right, and does not lie to compel absorption or appointment into the PNP, which is essentially discretionary. Appointment as Police Officer I to Senior Police Officer IV being vested by law in the PNP regional director or Chief of the PNP, no writ may issue to dictate its exercise, especially where the claimed right rests on NAPOLCOM resolutions that were recalled and where NAPOLCOM itself was never impleaded.

Jimmy B. Sanchez and Salvador A. Meteoro were former constables of the defunct Philippine Constabulary, while Roberto T. Lastimoso was sued as Chief, later Director-General, of the Philippine National Police. Republic Act No. 6975, as amended by Republic Act No. 8551, abolished the Constabulary, established the PNP under the reorganized Department of the Interior and Local Government, and prescribed the manner of appointment of PNP officers and members. The National Police Commission thereafter issued resolutions establishing guidelines for the reemployment or absorption of former PC-INP personnel who had been discharged but later acquitted or exonerated.

In 1989, petitioner Sanchez, a constable in the Philippine Constabulary, was discharged from the service for allegedly losing his service firearm. The following year, petitioner Meteoro, also a constable, was discharged for being absent without leave. On appeal, both were cleared of all charges. They then applied for reinstatement, but their applications were not acted upon even up to the integration of the Constabulary into the Philippine National Police upon enactment of Republic Act No. 6975.

Thereafter, on January 27, 1998, the National Police Commission issued Resolution No. 98-037 considering as absorbed into the police force, among others, those discharged by virtue of pending administrative or criminal cases but later acquitted or whose cases were dismissed, and who had filed petitions for reinstatement not acted upon by the PNP. On April 3, 1998, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution No. 98-105 affirming and confirming the absorption into the PNP, effective January 27, 1998, of the 126 ex-PC constables in the list submitted by Director Edgar C. Galvante of the PNP Directorate for Personnel and Records Management, in which Sanchez and Meteoro appeared as Nos. 90 and 122, respectively. On May 28, 1998, NAPOLCOM Commissioner Rogelio A. Pureza issued a memorandum to then PNP Chief Santiago Alino for issuance of absorption orders to the 45 PC constables in the initial batch covered by PNP Board Resolutions, in which Sanchez appeared as No. 45.

Because no absorption order had yet been issued by the Chief of the PNP, the listed constables sought assistance from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government. On July 29, 1998, the Office of the DILG Secretary sent a memorandum to respondent Roberto T. Lastimoso, then Chief of the PNP, endorsing their entreaties and requesting feedback. Without any response and with their pleas still unacted upon, petitioners instituted on September 30, 1998 a petition for mandamus in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. During its pendency, NAPOLCOM issued Resolution No. 99-061 on April 19, 1999 recalling Resolution No. 98-105, on the finding that the Galvante list was not of constables whose applications for absorption had been indorsed for approval, but of those whose applications were still to be reviewed, evaluated, interviewed, and deliberated upon by the PNP Special Committee.

The trial court found for petitioners, declaring Resolution No. 99-061 void ab initio and ordering the PNP Director-General to immediately issue absorption orders. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that petitioners had not established with distinct clarity their right to be absorbed into the PNP and therefore reversed the trial court.

• Clear Legal Right to Absorption: Whether petitioners have a clear legal right to be absorbed in the Philippine National Police.
• Validity of Recall Resolution: Whether Resolution No. 99-061 is void for being violative of the provisions of R.A. 7965 and its implementing Resolutions No. 98-037 and 98-105.
• Mandamus to Compel Absorption: Whether petitioners have a cause of action for mandamus to compel respondent to absorb petitioners in the Philippine National Police.

• Clear Legal Right to Absorption: No. No clear legal right to issuance of absorption orders was shown, the claimed basis being NAPOLCOM resolutions that cannot confer appointment contrary to R.A. No. 6975.
• Validity of Recall Resolution: No basis to sustain the trial court's voiding of Resolution No. 99-061. The recall rendered the claimed right moot, and NAPOLCOM, as issuer, was an indispensable party never impleaded, rendering the declaration void for want of authority.
• Mandamus to Compel Absorption: No. Mandamus does not lie because issuance of PNP absorption or appointment involves discretionary, not ministerial, duty and the asserted right and duty were neither clear nor imperative.

• Clear Legal Right to Absorption: Mandamus requires, on one hand, a clear and complete legal right indubitably granted by law or inferable as a matter of law, and on the other, an imperative duty to perform the act demanded; questionable rights or duties over which substantial doubt exists cannot be enforced, since the writ commands and expedites but does not inquire and adjudicate or secure a right not already established. Petitioners, discharged from the PC and cleared only thereafter, no longer sought reinstatement to an entity that no longer exists but employment in the PNP, technically a new appointment. Under Section 31 of R.A. No. 6975, appointment of Police Officer I to Senior Police Officer IV, to which petitioners could belong, is vested in the PNP regional director or Chief of the PNP and attested by the Civil Service Commission, not in NAPOLCOM, so Resolutions No. 98-037 and No. 98-105 could not create the asserted appointment right.
• Validity of Recall Resolution: Even assuming a right could be derived from Resolutions No. 98-037 and No. 98-105, it collapsed and the mandamus petition became moot upon NAPOLCOM's issuance of Resolution No. 99-061 recalling approval of the absorption, courts not resolving moot questions. The trial court's declaration of nullity was additionally improper because only the Chief of the PNP was impleaded below while NAPOLCOM, the separate entity that issued Resolution No. 99-061, was never impleaded. As an indispensable party and stranger to the case, NAPOLCOM was not bound by the judgment, and absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent court actions null and void for want of authority as to absent and present parties alike.
• Mandamus to Compel Absorption: The power to appoint being essentially discretionary, to be performed by the vested officer according to his best lights subject only to the appointee possessing legal qualifications, it cannot be the subject of mandamus, which compels only refused ministerial performance and commands exercise of an already possessed power to perform an already imposed duty. Viewed against those guideposts, issuance of absorption orders for petitioners was not compellable by writ.

• Mandamus — clear right and ministerial duty — The writ issues only to compel performance of a ministerial duty when refused, not to require fulfillment of a discretionary one; petitioner must show a clear, complete legal right indubitably granted by law, and respondent an imperative duty to perform the act demanded. Doubtful rights or duties defeat the writ, whose function is to command and expedite, not to inquire and adjudicate, and to implement a right already established, not to secure one. Applied to deny compulsion of PNP absorption orders for lack of an unclouded right and a ministerial duty.
• Appointment to public office as discretionary; PNP absorption as new appointment — Where the former office no longer exists, reemployment in its successor is technically a new appointment, and the power to appoint is essentially discretionary in the officer vested with it, conditioned only on the appointee's legal qualifications. Applied to characterize petitioners' claimed absorption into the PNP after abolition of the PC as discretionary appointment by PNP officials, not compellable by mandamus.
• Appointment power under R.A. No. 6975 — Appointment of PNP officers and members from Police Officer I to Senior Police Officer IV is effected by the PNP regional director for regional personnel or by the Chief of the PNP for national headquarters personnel, attested by the Civil Service Commission. Applied to reject reliance on NAPOLCOM resolutions as source of appointment right, the power being vested by statute in PNP officials rather than NAPOLCOM.
• Mootness — Courts will not resolve a moot question. Applied to treat the mandamus claim, even if hypothetically grounded on Resolutions No. 98-037 and No. 98-105, as collapsed and moot after Resolution No. 99-061 recalled the approval of absorption.
• Indispensable party; effect of non-joinder — An indispensable party must be impleaded and subjected to jurisdiction; strangers are not bound by judgment, and absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions null and void for want of authority as to absent and present parties. Applied to invalidate the trial court's voiding of Resolution No. 99-061 where NAPOLCOM, its issuer, was never impleaded and only the PNP Chief was sued.

• "In order that a writ of mandamus may aptly issue, it is essential that, on the one hand, petitioner has a clear legal right to the claim that is sought and that, on the other hand, respondent has an imperative duty to perform that which is demanded of him. Mandamus will not issue to enforce a right, or to compel compliance with a duty, which is questionable or over which a substantial doubt exists. The principal function of the writ of mandamus is to command and to expedite, not to inquire and to adjudicate. Thus, it is neither the office nor the aim of the writ to secure a legal right but to implement that which is already established. Unless the right to relief sought is unclouded, mandamus will not issue." — States the controlling test for mandamus applied to reject petitioners' claim to compulsion of absorption orders.
• "The power to appoint is essentially discretionary to be performed by the officer in which it is vested according to his best lights, the only condition being that the appointee should possess the qualifications required by law." — Defines why PNP appointment or absorption, as a new appointment after abolition of the PC, cannot be compelled by mandamus.
• "The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to the absent parties but even as to those present." — States the jurisdictional consequence applied to void the trial court's declaration against NAPOLCOM's resolution without impleading NAPOLCOM.

• Manila International Airport Authority vs. Rivera Village Lessee Homeowners Association, Inc., G.R. No. 143870, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 358, 375 — Followed as authority for the mandamus requisites of clear legal right and imperative duty and the rule that unclouded right is required.
• Gloria vs. De Guzman, 319 Phil. 217 (1995) — Followed to characterize employment in the PNP after abolition of the PC as technically a new appointment and appointment power as discretionary and not compellable by mandamus.
• Espiras vs. Court of Appeals, 395 Phil. 803, 811-812 (2000) — Followed for the rule that courts will not resolve a moot question, applied after recall of the absorption approval.
• Domingo vs. Scheer, 466 Phil. 235, 265 (2004) — Followed for the rule that strangers to a case, such as an unimpleaded entity, are not bound by the judgment.
• Lotte Phil. Co., Inc. vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 166302, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 591, 596 — Followed for the rule that absence of an indispensable party voids subsequent court actions for want of authority.

• Section 31, Republic Act No. 6975 — Provides that appointment of Police Officer I to Senior Police Officer IV shall be by the PNP regional director for regional personnel or by the Chief of the PNP for national headquarters personnel, attested by the Civil Service Commission. Applied to hold that appointment power is vested in PNP officials, not NAPOLCOM, defeating petitioners' claimed right under NAPOLCOM resolutions.
• Section 29, Republic Act No. 6975, as amended by Republic Act No. 8551 — Provides that the head of the PNP with the rank of director general shall have the position title of Chief of the PNP. Applied to identify respondent's capacity as the PNP head sued for mandamus.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for review on certiorari. Applied as the procedural vehicle assailing the Court of Appeals decision and resolution.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Chairperson, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Ruben T. Reyes. No separate concurring reasoning of significance appears in the text.