NICART V. TITONG AND ABRUGAR, SR.

G.R. No. 207682

10 December 2014
Facts:
Before ending his term, then Governor of Eastern Samar Ben P. Evardone (Evardone)
issued ninety-three (93) appointments including that of respondents Ma. Josefina Titong (Titong)
and Joselito Abrugar, Sr. (Abrugar). Consequently, the appointees immediately assumed their
respective positions. Upon submission of the appointments to the Civil Service Commission
Regional Office (CSCRO), all 93 appointments were disapproved for violating Section 2.1 of
CSC Memorandum Circular. Evardone appealed the disapproval but it was dismissed.
Respondents individually moved for reconsideration of the disapproval but later withdrew their
motions and separately converted the same to an Appeal by means of a petition for review with
the CSC proper.
Thereafter, Titong and Abrugar claimed for payment of their first salary which was
denied by the Commission on Audit (COA) Provincial Office and by petitioner, who at that time
was already the incumbent Governor.
CSC granted the respondents petition and modified the CSCROs ruling. It declared the
appointment of Titong and Abrugar valid. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied
by CSC. Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA.
Pending CA resolution, CSC issued a writ of execution ordering petitioner and the
Provincial Government to pay the salaries and other emoluments due to respondents.
Since petitioner refused to pay the salaries despite the service of the writ of execution,
respondents filed before the RTC a Petition for Mandamus with Unspecified Damages against
herein petitioner. Respondents, in their Comment, maintain that the petition should be dismissed.
CA, however, granted the petition and ruled that the respondents appointments are not
valid. Consequently, the CA held, respondents can no longer claim entitlement to the payment of
their salaries from the government and that it is the appointing authority who shall be personally
liable for their salaries, as directed by Section 4, Rule VI of the Revised Omnibus Rules on
Appointments and Other Personnel Actions.
Aggrieved, respondents sought recourse from SC via a Rule 45. SC denied the petition
for review, ruling that there is no reversible error in the challenged decision to warrant the
exercise of the Courts discretionary appellate jurisdiction. Respondents sought reconsideration
thereof. Pending SCs action on the motion for reconsideration, RTC rendered a decision as
regards the petition for Mandamus with Unspecified Damages filed by the respondents, and ruled
in favor of Titong and Abrugar. It ordered the immediate payment of salaries and other
emoluments to the respondents and give due recognition to their appointments. According to the
RTC, since CA did not issue a restraining order or injunction from proceeding with the civil case
filed by respondents and that Rule 45 was filed before SC thereby staying the CA Decision, there
is a continued effectivity of the CSC decision in respondents favor.
Furthermore, RTC held that this is consistent with Section 82 of CSC Memorandum
Circular No. 19, stating that [t]he filing and pendency of a petition for review with the [CA] or
certiorari with the [SC] shall not stop the execution of the final decision of the Commission,
unless
the
Court
issues
a
restraining
order
or
an
injunction.

Meanwhile, the motion for reconsideration filed before SC was denied, thus, upholding
the CA ruling that the appointments of the respondents were invalid.
Issue:
WON the RTC Decision shall be deemed executory considering no injunction or restraining
order was issued that would enjoin the RTC from deciding the case
Held/Ratio:
NO. RTC proceeded with the civil case and rendered the assailed decision pursuant to
Section 82 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19. Ordinarily, the non-issuance by the CA of an
injunction or restraining order would make the CSC Resolution executory pending appeal per
Section 82 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, making it a proper subject of a
petition for mandamus. However, what the RTC failed to take into account is the fact that the
propriety of the very directives under the writ of mandamus sought is wholly reliant on the CAs
resolution and that judicial courtesy dictates that it suspend its proceedings and await the CAs
resolution of the petition for review.
SC has, in several cases, held that there are instances where, even if there is no writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court, it would be proper
for a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial
courtesy. Unfortunately, the RTC did not consider this principle. Considering that the mandamus
petition heavily relies on the validity or invalidity of the appointments which issue is to be
resolved by the CA, RTC incorrectly concluded that it may take cognizance of the petition
without erroneously disregarding the principle of judicial courtesy. What is more, the RTC went
beyond the issues of the case when it affirmed the validity of respondents appointments,
considering that the only issue presented before it is the propriety of executing CSC Resolution.
By making said findings, conclusions, and directives, the RTC, in effect, affirmed the CSCs
finding that the disputed appointments were valid, pre-empted the CAs Resolution of the appeal,
and made its own determination thereon.
Nevertheless, enforcement of the disputed CSC Resolution is no longer proper and
necessary in light of SC Resolutions affirming the CAs ruling that respondents appointments
were not valid. SCs dismissal of the motion for reconsideration was definitely a disposition of
the merits of the case and constituted a bar to a relitigation of the issues raised there under the
doctrine of res judicata. The mandamus now has no basis upon which its issuance can be
anchored under the principle of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.
Petition is granted.