G.R. No. L-60074 July 7, 1986
TEOFILO I. MARCELO, petitioner, vs. FRANCISCO S. TANTUICO, JR., Acting Chairman, Commission on Audit, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY and JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., Deputy Presidential Executive Assistant, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Teofilo I. Marcelo, Corporate Auditor of the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA), was arrested in March 1974 and charged before a Military Tribunal with Malversation through Falsification and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Based on these charges, his name was included in the September 21, 1975 purge list, summarily dismissing him from government service. The criminal cases were later transferred to the Tanodbayan, which dismissed them on April 22, 1980, due to insufficiency of evidence after key prosecution witnesses retracted.
Following his exoneration, Marcelo requested reinstatement and payment of back salaries from the Office of the President in August 1981. The request was denied in a January 1982 letter, citing a Commission on Audit (COA) policy against reinstating personnel terminated in the 1975 purge. The COA, through Acting Chairman Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr., further justified the denial by stating that all old positions had been abolished under its reorganization pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 898 and that the PCA had proposed a cutback of COA personnel due to budgetary constraints.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether Marcelo’s summary dismissal was legal, and (2) whether he is entitled to reinstatement and back salaries via a writ of mandamus.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling against the petitioner on both issues. First, the summary dismissal was valid under Section 3(a) of Presidential Decree No. 6, which allows immediate removal without formal investigation when the charge is serious and the evidence of guilt is strong. At the time of his dismissal in 1975, Marcelo faced serious charges involving a substantial sum (P349,608.98) and conspiracy to defraud, supported by sworn statements from twelve witnesses. The subsequent dismissal of the criminal case based on witness retractions did not negate the initial strength of the evidence that justified the administrative action under the decree in force at that time.
Second, the Court held that mandamus does not lie to compel reinstatement. Marcelo had no clear legal right to reinstatement following the valid abolition of his former position during the COA reorganization under P.D. No. 898. Reinstatement under such circumstances is discretionary, not ministerial. Letter of Instruction No. 647 required a recommendation from the department head for reentry, which was denied. Mandamus only compels the performance of a ministerial duty where a clear right and a correlative duty exist. Since the respondents acted within their discretion in denying reinstatement due to the abolished office and reorganization, and Marcelo failed to demonstrate a clear legal right, the petition for mandamus was without merit.