POWER OR AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE OR ORDER EXECUTION result of, the defendant's wrongful act in failing and refusing to do the

ailing and refusing to do the act required to

be done. It is noteworthy that the Rules of 1940 had an identical counterpart
DR. ISABELITA VITAL-GOZON, in her official capacity as MEDICAL CENTER CHIEF OF provision. The Solicitor General's theory that the rule in question is a mere procedural
THE NATIONAL CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL, petitioner, vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF
one allowing joinder of an action of mandamus and another for damages, is
APPEALS and DR. ALEJANDRO S. DE LA FUENTE, respondents.
G.R. No. 101428 August 5, 1992 untenable, for it implies that a claim for damages arising from the omission or failure
NARVASA, C.J.: to do an act subject of a mandamus suit may be litigated separately from the latter,
the matter of damages not being inextricably linked to the cause of action for
FACTS: In 1987, by virtue of E.O. 119 issued by then Pres. Cory Aquino, a mandamus, which is certainly not the case.
reorganization of the Ministry of Health was effected. At the time of such
reorganization, Dr. Alejandro Dela Fuente was the Chief of Clinics of the National
Children’s Hospital. In February 1988, Dr. Dela Fuente received a notice from the
Deparment of Health that he would be re-appointed as Medical Specialist II. Such a
position was considered as two ranks lower than his previous position of Chief of
Clinics. This prompted Dr. Dela Fuente to file a protest with the DOH Reorganization
Board. The protest was ignored. Dela Fuente then filed a case before the CSC. In the
meantime, the position of Chief of Clinics (then changed to Chief of Medical
Professional Staff) were turned over and thereafter exercised by a Dr. Merencilla. CSC
ruled in favor of Dr. Dela Fuente. It ruled that Dr. Dela Fuente is deemed having
retained his previous position. Neither an MR nor an appeal was filed assailing such a
decision thereby rendering the decision as final and executory. Months have elapsed
but still there was no action on the part of Vital-Gozon et. al. to execute the decision
of the CSC. CSC also told him that they believed they have no coercive powers to
enforce their own decision. This prompted Dela Fuente to file a petition before the CA
to compel Vital-Gozon et. al. to restore him to the position of Chief of Clinics and pay
him his backwages plus damages for Vital-Gozon’s refusal to comply with the CSC
resolution. CA granted the decision insofar as his restoration to his former position
but denied insofar as the grant of damages ruling that the petition is not the correct
vehicle to claim such damages not the CA is the correct forum for such relief. CA also
took note to representation by the SolGen of Dr. Vital-Gozon saying that pursuant to
the ruling in Urbano and Co cases, the SolGen is not authorized to represent her. MR
was filed by Dela Fuente arguing that CA has the power to grant damages in a
mandamus action by virtue of BP 129 which gave the SC, CA and RTCs concurrent
jurisdiction over such petitions and that CA was given the power to conduct hearings
and receive evidence to resolve factual issues. To require him to separately litigate
the matter of damages he continued, would lead to that multiplicity of suits which is
abhorred by the law. CA eventually granted the MR and ordered setting a date for
reception of evidence on the la Fuente's claim for damages. It based its judgment on
the last phrase of Sec. 3 Rule 65 ROC which expressly allows the award of damages in
a mandamus petition.

ISSUES: 1. W/N CSC had the power to execute its own final and executory Resolution.
2.W/N the Court of Appeals has jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter of
damages in a special civil action of mandamus.

HELD: 1. Yes. Now, final and executory judgments are enforced by writ of execution
and not by another, separate action, whether of mandamus or otherwise. Hence,
execution of the Civil Service Commission's decision of August 9, 1988 should have
been ordered and effected by the Commission itself, when de la Fuente filed a motion
therefor. It declined to do so, however, on the alleged ground, as de la Fuente claims
he was told, that it "had no coercive powers — unlike a court — to enforce its final
decisions/resolutions." 35 That proposition, communicated to de la Fuente, of the
Commission's supposed lack of coercive power to enforce its final judgments, is
incorrect. It is inconsistent with previous acts of the Commission of actually directing
execution of its decisions and resolutions, which this Court has sanctioned in several
cases; 36 and it is not in truth a correct assessment of its powers under the
Constitution and the relevant laws.

Be this as it may, the fact is that by reason of the Commission's mistaken refusal to
execute its final and executory Resolution of August 9, 1988, extended proceedings
have taken place in the Court of Appeals and certain issues have been expressly
raised in relation thereto, supra. Those issues appear to the Court to be important
enough to deserve serious treatment and resolution, instead of simply being given
short shrift by a terse ruling that the proceedings in the Court Service Commission
actually had the power to execute its final and executory Resolution.

2. Yes. CA has jurisdiction to award damages in mandamus petitions. Sec. 3 of Rule 65

of the Rules of Court explicitly authorized the rendition of judgment in a mandamus
action "commanding the defendant, immediately or at some other specified time, to
do the act required to be done to protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay the
damages sustained by the petitioner by reason of the wrongful acts of the
defendant." The provision makes plain that the damages are an incident, or the