[G.R. No. 139382.June 19, 2001]
SEC.
OF JUSTICE CUEVAS et al. vs. ATTY.
BACAL
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a
resolution of this Court dated JUN
19 2001.
G.R No. 139382 (The Secretary of
Justice Serafin R. Cuevas, Executive Secretary Ronaldo B. Zamora, and Atty.
Carina J. Demaisip vs. Atty. Josefina G. Bacal.)
Respondent Josefina G.
Bacal moves for reconsideration of the decision of December 6, 2000 dismissing
her petition for quo warranto against petitioner Carina Demaisip.Petitioners, who were required to comment on
the motion, asked for an extension, which is hereby granted, and the comment,
which they filed on April 20, 2001, is hereby admitted.It appears that on February 16, 2001,
petitioner Demaisip retired as Chief Public Attorney, and in her place, Persida
V. Rueda-Acosta was appointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on February
19, 2001.
Respondent contends that Part III, Chap. I,
Art. IV, par. 5(c) of the Integrated Reorganization Plan, as adopted by P.D.
No. 1, pursuant to which it was held that appointments to the Career Executive
Service (CES) should be made on the basis of rank, has been repealed by Art.
VII, §16 of the Constitution and by the Administrative Code of 1987 (Book IV,
Title III, Chapter 10, §§46-47).The
provision in question reads:
Appointment.Appointment to
appropriate classes in the Career Executive Service shall be made by the
President from a list of career executive eligibles recommended by the
Board.Such appointments shall be
made on the basis of rank; provided that
appointment to the higher ranks which qualify the incumbents to assignments as
undersecretary and heads of bureaus and offices and equivalent positions shall
be with the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.The President may, however, in exceptional
cases, appoint any person who is not a Career Executive Service eligible;
provided that such appointee shall subsequently take the required Career
Executive Service examination and that he shall not be promoted to a higher
class until he qualifies in such examination. (emphasis added)
Respondent points out that
appointments to the positions of undersecretaries, heads of bureaus and
offices, and other equivalent positions are no longer required to be submitted
to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation.She argues that because of the repeal of the abovequoted
provision of the Integrated Reorganization Plan, appointments to the CES should
now be based on position and not on rank.
The contention has no
merit.Art. VII, §16 of the
Constitution has modified, but not repealed, the provision of the Integrated
Reorganization Plan indicated by respondent insofar as appointments of
undersecretaries and heads of bureaus and offices and equivalent positions are
concerned in the sense that such appointments are no longer subject to
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.But the rest of the provision in question relative to other
appointments to the CES remains effective.Consequently, as provided in paragraphs 5(c) and (e), appointments,
reassignments, and transfers to the CES continue to be based on rank.
Moreover, with the
retirement of petitioner Carina Demaisip, respondent's action has become moot
and academic.In actions for quo
warranto, the question is who between the parties is entitled to the
contested position.If any of the
parties ceases from office, any decision rendered for one or the other party
cannot bind the successor in office (See Mendoza
v. Allas, 302 SCRA 633 (1999)).In this
case, petitioner Demaisip's retirement and the subsequent appointment of
Rueda-Acosta in her stead have rendered this case moot and academic.
For the foregoing reasons,
the Court RESOLVED to DENY with FINALITY the motion for reconsideration.
Puno, J., joined by
Vitug, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., joined by Panganiban and Quisumbing, JJ.,
maintain their dissents.Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., take no part.
Very
truly yours,
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Asst.
Clerk of Court
