MEDALLA VS SAYO SAYO GR No. L-54554 30 March 1981 FACTS
Petitioner, Dr. Eustaquio M. Medalla, Jr., is the Chief of Clinics of the Caloocan City General Hospital, Caloocan City. Private respondent, Dr. Honorato G. Mackay was the esident Physician thereat. !hen the position position of "ssista "ssistant, nt, hospital hospital "d#inistr "d#inistrator ator of the Caloocan Caloocan City General Hospital $eca#e vacant upon the resi%nation of the incu#$ent, for#er Caloocan City Mayor "le&andro ". 'ider desi%nated and su$sequently appointed, as "ssistant Hospital "d#inistrator private respondent Dr. Mackay, a esident Physician in said hospital. Petitioner, Petitioner, Dr. Medalla, Jr., Jr., protested Dr. Mackay(s desi%nation and su$sequent appoint#ent alle%in% a#on% others that, as Chief of Clinics, he )Medalla* was ne+tinrank. -he then "ctin% City Mayor ir%ilio ir%ilio P. P. o$les, o$les, who succeeded for#er Mayor, Mayor, now "sse#$ly#an "sse#$ly#an "le&andro "le&andro ". ". 'ider, in his /th 0ndorse#ent dated 1epte#$er 23, 4567, sustained Mackay(s appoint#ent. Medalla elevated his case to the Civil 1ervice Co##ission on appeal. 8n Dece#$er 25, 4567, the Civil 1ervic 1ervice e Merit Merit 1yste# 1yste#s s 9oard 9oard issued issued esolu esolutio tion n :o. /5 sustai sustainin nin% % Medall Medalla(s a(s appeal appeal and revoki revokin% n% Mackay(s appoint#ent as "ssistant Hospital "d#inistrator. ;pon auto#atic review $y the 8ffice of the President, pursuant to section 45)<*, PD :o. 736, Presidential E+ecutive "ssistant Jaco$o C. Clave rendered a Decision revokin% Dr. Mackay(s appoint#ent and awardin% it in favor of Dr. Medalla. -he "ctin% City Mayor, on $ehalf of Mackay, #oved for reconsideration. -otally -otally disre%ardin% the decision of the 8ffice of the President, the sa#e "ctin% Mayoor appointed Mackay as Hospital "d#inistrator and desi%n desi%nate ated d Dr. Dr. -antoco ntoco as his "ssis "ssistan tant, t, co#ple co#pleely ely $ypass $ypassin% in% Medall Medalla. a. C1C disap disappro proved ved said said appoint#ent appoint#ent.. the City Mayor of Caloocan Caloocan invoked the privile% privile%e e of an appointin% appointin% authority authority to deter#ine deter#ine who can $est fulfill the functions of an office citin% the case of Aguilar vs. Nieva, Jr. to that effect. "nd as to the #atter of his readiness to issue an appoint#ent to Medalla, he #anifested his preference to withhold action pendin% Mackay(s unresolved Motion for econsideration of the Decision of June 26, 4565 of the Civil 1ervice Merit 1yste#s 9oard. Petitioner Medalla su$#its that the -rial Court erred in not dis#issin% Mackay(s Petition $efore it, there $ein% a clear showin% of none+haustion of ad#inistrative re#edies, and that said Court was devoid of &urisdiction in reviewin% on certiorari decisions of the 8ffice of the President and of the Civil service Co##ission rendered in the e+ercise of their quasi&udicial functions.
ISSE
!hether the appoint#ent of Dr. Mackay is valid !ELD
:8. ;nder the evised Charter of the City of Caloocan " :o. ==32*, it is clear that the power of appoint#ent $y the City Mayor of heads of offices entirely paid out of city funds is subject to Civil Service law, rules and regulations regulations )ibid ., ., section 45*. -he Caloocan City General Hospital is one of the city depart#ents provided for in the said law ) ibid ., ., sec. 46*. -he Hospital Hospital "d#inis "d#inistrato tratorr is appointed appointed $y the City Mayor )ibid ., ., section <<9*. -he Hospital "d#inistrator is the head of the City General Hospital e#powered to ad#inister, direct, and coordinate all activities of the hospital to carry out its o$&ectives as to the care of the sick and the in&ured ) ibid.*. ;nder section 45 )>* of the Civil 1ervice Decree )PD :o. 736, effective on 8cto$er <, 456=*, the recruit#ent or selection of e#ployees for pro#otions is drawn fro# the ne +tinrank.
0t is true that, as the respondent City Mayor alle%es, a local e+ecutive should $e allowed the choice of #en of his confidence, provided they are qualified and elli%i$le, who in his $est esti#ation are possesses of the requisite reputation, inte%rity, knowled%ea$ility, ener%y and &ud%e#ent. 9 However, as reproduced heretofore, the Decision of the Civil 1ervice Merit 1yste#s 9oard, upheld $y the 8ffice of the President, contains a &udicious assess#ent of the qualifications of $oth petitioner Medalla and private respondent Mackay for the contested position, revealin% a careful study of the controversy $etween the parties, which cannot $e i%nored. -he revocation of Mackay(s appoint#ent reveals no ar$itrariness nor %rave a$use of discretion.
