GR 157783; (September, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 157783 September 23, 2005
NILO PALOMA, Petitioner, vs. DANILO MORA, HILARIO FESTEJO, MAXIMA SALVINO, BRYN BONGBONG and VALENTINO SEVILLA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Nilo Paloma was appointed General Manager of the Palompon, Leyte Water District in 1993. In December 1995, the Board of Directors, composed of the respondents, terminated his services via Resolution No. 8-95 and designated respondent Valentino Sevilla as Officer-in-Charge. Alleging a denial of due process, Paloma filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in January 1996, seeking reinstatement. The RTC dismissed the petition for being prematurely filed, a ruling affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, Paloma also filed a complaint for illegal dismissal with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which was dismissed in November 1996 for lack of a prima facie case.
ISSUE
The primary issues were: (1) whether a petition for mandamus is the proper remedy to compel reinstatement; and (2) whether the CSC has primary jurisdiction over the illegal dismissal case.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. On the first issue, mandamus does not lie. Mandamus is a remedy to compel the performance of a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one. The appointment and removal of a Water District General Manager is governed by Presidential Decree No. 198. Section 23 of the decree explicitly states that the General Manager serves at the pleasure of the Board of Directors. Therefore, the act of removal is discretionary on the part of the Board, and mandamus cannot be used to control or review such discretion. On the second issue, the CSC correctly had primary jurisdiction. Water Districts are government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters, and their employees fall under the civil service. Consequently, disputes concerning the removal of such employees are primarily administrative in character and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the CSC, pursuant to the Administrative Code of 1987. The Court emphasized the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies; Paloma’s direct resort to the judicial court via mandamus was premature, as he should have first pursued and exhausted the administrative recourse available with the CSC. The CSC’s subsequent dismissal of his complaint affirmed the propriety of this administrative avenue.