G.R. No. 194994 , April 16, 2013
EMMANUEL A. DE CASTRO, Petitioner, vs. EMERSON S. CARLOS, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Emmanuel A. de Castro was appointed as Assistant General Manager for Operations (AGMO) of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA) by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on July 29, 2009, with the concurrence of the Metro Manila Council. He took his oath on August 17, 2009. On July 30, 2010, MMDA Chairperson Francis Tolentino issued an Office Order designating Corazon Cruz as Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the AGMO office, reassigning petitioner to another office, and withdrawing his service vehicle and office space. This was based on Office of the President (OP) Memorandum Circular No. 2, series of 2010, which stated that non-Career Executive Service Officials (non-CESOs) occupying Career Executive Service (CES) positions shall remain only until October 31, 2010, unless reappointed. On November 2, 2010, Chairperson Tolentino designated respondent Emerson S. Carlos as OIC of the AGMO office. Petitioner was subsequently removed from the payroll. The Career Executive Service Board (CESB), in a reply to petitioner’s query, stated that the AGMO position had not been classified as a CES position and that petitioner’s appointment was not coterminous. Petitioner declined an offer for a different position, demanded reinstatement and payment of salaries, and sent letters to MMDA and the Office of the President. On January 4, 2011, President Benigno Aquino III appointed respondent as the new AGMO. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Quo Warranto directly with the Supreme Court to oust respondent from the position.

ISSUE

1. Whether the petition should be dismissed for failure to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts.
2. Whether the position of Assistant General Manager for Operations (AGMO) of the MMDA is a Career Executive Service (CES) position.
3. Whether respondent Emerson S. Carlos was validly appointed to the position of AGMO.
4. Whether petitioner Emmanuel A. de Castro is entitled to the position of AGMO and to the payment of salaries and benefits.

RULING

1. On the Hierarchy of Courts: The Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition for failure to observe the doctrine of hierarchy of courts. The Court held that while it has concurrent original jurisdiction over petitions for quo warranto, such jurisdiction is not exclusive and must be exercised in accordance with the hierarchy of courts. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court is allowed only for special and important reasons clearly specified in the petition. Petitioner’s justifications—public interest in civil service stability and protection of civil servants’ rights, and speculation about lower courts’ reluctance to rule against a presidential appointment—were deemed insufficient to bypass the hierarchy. The procedural infirmity warranted dismissal.
2. On the Nature of the AGMO Position: Assuming the petition was properly filed, the Court ruled it lacked merit. The Court held that the position of AGMO of the MMDA is a Career Executive Service (CES) position. The Court based this on:
* Section 4 of Republic Act No. 7924 (the MMDA Charter), which states that the AGMO shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Metro Manila Council, “subject to civil service laws and regulations,” and that the appointee “shall enjoy security of tenure.”
* The Administrative Code of 1987, which defines the Career Executive Service as including “all positions of equivalent rank” to an Assistant General Manager, as declared by the CESB.
* The executive and managerial nature of the AGMO’s functions, which aligns with the definition of CES positions under the Administrative Code.
The Court noted that while the CESB had stated the position was “not yet classified,” this did not mean it was not a CES position. Classification is a separate administrative process that does not alter the statutory nature of the position.
3. On the Validity of the Appointments and Petitioner’s Claim: The Court ruled that respondent’s appointment by President Aquino was valid, and petitioner is not entitled to the position or to back salaries.
* Petitioner, a non-CESO occupying a CES position (AGMO), was covered by OP Memorandum Circular No. 2. This circular allowed such officials to remain only until October 31, 2010, unless reappointed. Petitioner was not reappointed.
* His reassignment and subsequent removal from the payroll were consequences of the circular’s application. His security of tenure was not violated because it only attaches to a “rightful” occupancy of the office. Since his tenure was effectively limited by the circular applicable to his status (non-CESO in a CES position), he had no vested right to remain after October 31, 2010.
* Respondent, having been validly appointed by President Aquino on January 4, 2011, is the lawful holder of the office. A quo warranto proceeding requires the petitioner to prove a clear right to the office. Petitioner failed to do so.
* Consequently, petitioner is not entitled to the payment of salaries and benefits received by respondent during his tenure.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: The Petition for Quo Warranto was DISMISSED.