Vital – Gozon v. CA Facts: In 1987, by virtue of E.O. 119 issued by then Pres. Cory Aquino, a reorganization of the Ministry Ministry of Health Health was effected. effected. At the time of such such reorgani reorganizatio zation, n, Dr. Alejandro Alejandro Dela Fuente was the Chief Chief of Clinics of the National National Children Children’s ’s Hospital. Hospital. In February February 1988, Dr. Dela Fuente receiv received ed a notice notice from from the Deparm Deparment ent of Health Health that that he would would be re-app re-appoin ointed ted as Medica Medicall Specialist II. Such a position was considered as two ranks lower than his previous position of Chief Chief of Clinics. Clinics. This prompted prompted Dr. Dela Fuente to file a protest protest with the DOH Reorgani Reorganizatio zation n 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 that Dr. Dela Dela Fuente Fuente is deemed deemed having having retain retained ed his previous previous position position.. Neithe Neitherr 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-Goz Vital-Gozon on et. al. to restore restore him to the position position of Chief of Clinics and pay him his backwages backwages plus plus damage damages s for Vit Vitalal-Goz Gozon’ on’s s refus refusal al to compl comply y with with the CSC resolu resolutio tion. n. CA grante granted d 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. VitalGozon 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 resolv resolve e factua factuall iss issues ues.. To requir require e him to separ separate ately ly litig litigate ate the matte matterr of damage damages s 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. Issue: Whether Whether or not the Court Court of Appeals has jurisdiction jurisdiction to take cognizance cognizance of the matter of damages in a special civil action of mandamus. mandamus . Held: Yes. CA has jurisdiction to award damages in mandamus petitions. petitions. Sec. 3 of Rule 65 of the Rule Rules s of Cour Courtt expl explic icit itly ly auth author oriz ized ed the the rend rendit itio ion n of judg judgme ment nt in a mandamus action "commanding "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 result of, the defendant's wrongful act in failing and refusing to do the the act act requ requir ired ed to be done done.. It is note notewo wort rthy hy that that the the Rule Rules s of 19 1940 40 had had an iden identi tica call counterpart counterpart provision. The The Soli Solici cito torr Gene Genera ral' l's s theo theory ry that that the the rule rule in ques questi tion on is a mere mere procedur procedural al one allowing joi joind nder er of an acti action on of mandamus and and anot anothe herr for for dama damage ges, s, is untenable, for it implies that a claim for damages arising from the omission or failure to do an act subject of a mandamus suit suit may be litiga litigated ted separ separate ately ly from from the latter latter,, the the matte matterr of damages not being inextricably linked to the cause of action for mandamus, mandamus , which is certainly not the case. Issue: WON the SolGen is authorized to represent Vital-Gozon in this case Held:
Yes. The doctrine laid down in the Urbano and Co cases already adverted to, 45 is quite clear to the effect that the Office of the Solicitor General is not authorized to represent a public official at any stage of a criminal case. This observation should apply as well to a public official who is haled to court on a civil suit for damages arising from a felony allegedly committed by him (Article 100, Revised Penal Code). Any pecuniary liability he may be held to account for on the occasion of such civil suit is for his own account. The State is not liable for the same. A fortiori, fortiori , the Office of the Solicitor General likewise has no authority to represent him in such a civil suit for damages. Here, Dr. Vital-Gozon is not charged with a crime, or civilly prosecuted for damages arising from a crime, there is no legal obstacle to her being represented by the Office of the Solicitor General.
