8/12/2019 Orencia vs Enrile

1/1

G.R. No. L-28997 February 22, 1974FELICISIMO M. ORENCIA, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, as Secretary of Justice

Facts: On June 20, 1967, petitioner-appellant filed the said petition for mandamus with preliminary injunctionbefore the ManilaCourt of First Instance against respondents docketed as Civil Case No. 69840, allegingsubstantially that he is the deputy clerk of courtof the Clerks of Court Division of the Land RegistrationCommission, an he has been performing functions of Assistant Chief of saiddivision and has beenconsidered and recognized as such until Rep. Act 4040, enacted June 18, 1964 increasing the salariesof Assistant Chiefs of Divisions, among others, implemented where he was left out while co-assistantchief of the nine (9) otherdivisionsof the Land Registration Commission were so recognized and extended increased compensation, in spite of his protest torespondents Secretary of Justice, Land Registration Commissioner,and Commissioner of Civil Service; and to add insult to injury,respondent Guillermina M. Gener, wasappointed assistant of the Clerks of Court Division, when there was no vacancy to said positionand givenan increased compensation of P9,600.00 for the said position, while petitioner continued to receive theold rate of P3,070.08 per annum, and praying that he be extended similar recognition as assistant chief ofthe Clerks of Court Division of theLand Registration Commission, and paid the corresponding salaryunder Rep. Act 4040 of Court Division of the LandRegistrationCommission, and paid the corresponding salary under Rep. Act 4040 and that the appointment of respondent Guillermina M.Gener be declared null and void, with damages and attorney's fees. On July 17, 1967, respondents filed their answer, and afterusual admissions and denials, interposed adefense that petitioner is unqualified for the position of Assistant Chief, Clerks of CourtDivision, and beinga new position created under Republic Act 4040, the same can only be filed by a qualified person; thatrespondent[Gener], being a lawyer, is more qualified than petitioner who is onlya high school graduate with second grade civil serviceeligibility, and praying that the petition bedismissed."On July 6, 1964, petitioner formally requested respondent commissioner of Land Registrationcommission for recommendation andpayment of his differential salary, which request was, however,denied on July 10, 1964. ... On September 1, 1964,petitionerappealed to the Secretary of Justice, but appeal was likewise denied ... . From the ruling of theSecretary of Justice, heappealed to respondent Commissioner of Civil Service on June 3, 1965, and,again, he was rebuffed on February 21, 1966 ... . On July29, 1966, said respondent Gener was appointed

Assistant Chief of the Clerks of Court Division effective July 1, 1966, by therespondent Secretary of

Justice, upon recommendation of respondent Land Registration Commission, and duly attested to bytheCommissioner of Civil Service.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to Assistant Chief position in the Clerk of Court Division of LandRegistrationCommission.

HELD: NO.WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of March 26, 1968, dismissing the petition for mandamus, isaffirmed. No costs.Mandamus is the proper remedy if it could be shown that there was neglect on the partof a tribunal in the performance of an act,which specifically the law enjoins as a duty or an unlawfulexclusion of a party from the use and enjoyment of a right to which he isentitled. According to formerChief Justice Moran, only specific legal rights may be enforced by mandamus if they are clear andcertain.

If the legal rights of the petition are not well-defined, clear, and certain, the petition must be dismissed.It isnot merely that petitioner does not have a clear legal right. The more accurate way of putting it is that hehas no right at all to theposition of Assistant Chief to the Clerks of Court Division. The ingenuity displayedby counsel, worthy of a better cause, it might beadded, cannot obscure the undeniable fact that withoutRepublic Act No. 4040, there would be no such position that is now thesubject of dispute between himand respondent Gener.On the other hand, it is not disputed that petitioner's scholastic background ismuch more limited, he being merely a high schoolgraduate. Under such circumstances, his previousexperience in his capacity as Deputy Clerk of Court attesting to his years of servicecould not avail. Theappointing official, especially so where his position is a constitutional creation, as in this case, mustbeleft that necessary latitude of choice as to who can best discharge the responsibilities of the office wher e the vacancy occurs.The Secretary of Justice, and the Commissioner of Civil Service on the precisepoint at issue, "Courts will should respect thecontemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by theexecutive officers whose duty it is to enforce it, and unlesssuch interpretation is clearly erroneous willordinarily be controlled thereby."