Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Meanwhile, the motion for reconsideration filed before SC was denied, thus, upholding
the CA ruling that the appointments of the respondents were invalid.
Issue:
WON the RTC Decision shall be deemed executory considering no injunction or restraining
order was issued that would enjoin the RTC from deciding the case
Held/Ratio:
NO. RTC proceeded with the civil case and rendered the assailed decision pursuant to
Section 82 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19. Ordinarily, the non-issuance by the CA of an
injunction or restraining order would make the CSC Resolution executory pending appeal per
Section 82 of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, making it a proper subject of a
petition for mandamus. However, what the RTC failed to take into account is the fact that the
propriety of the very directives under the writ of mandamus sought is wholly reliant on the CAs
resolution and that judicial courtesy dictates that it suspend its proceedings and await the CAs
resolution of the petition for review.
SC has, in several cases, held that there are instances where, even if there is no writ of
preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order issued by a higher court, it would be proper
for a lower court or court of origin to suspend its proceedings on the precept of judicial
courtesy. Unfortunately, the RTC did not consider this principle. Considering that the mandamus
petition heavily relies on the validity or invalidity of the appointments which issue is to be
resolved by the CA, RTC incorrectly concluded that it may take cognizance of the petition
without erroneously disregarding the principle of judicial courtesy. What is more, the RTC went
beyond the issues of the case when it affirmed the validity of respondents appointments,
considering that the only issue presented before it is the propriety of executing CSC Resolution.
By making said findings, conclusions, and directives, the RTC, in effect, affirmed the CSCs
finding that the disputed appointments were valid, pre-empted the CAs Resolution of the appeal,
and made its own determination thereon.
Nevertheless, enforcement of the disputed CSC Resolution is no longer proper and
necessary in light of SC Resolutions affirming the CAs ruling that respondents appointments
were not valid. SCs dismissal of the motion for reconsideration was definitely a disposition of
the merits of the case and constituted a bar to a relitigation of the issues raised there under the
doctrine of res judicata. The mandamus now has no basis upon which its issuance can be
anchored under the principle of res judicata by conclusiveness of judgment.
Petition is granted.