G.R. No. 211833, April 07, 2015
FERDINAND R. VILLANUEVA, PRESIDING JUDGE, MCTC, COMPOSTELA-NEW BATAAN, COMPOSTELA VALLEY PROVINCE, Petitioner, v. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL, Respondent.
FACTS
: The petitioner was appointed on September 18, 2012 as the Presiding Judge of
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Compostela-New Bataan, Poblacion, Compostela
Valley Province, Region XI, which is a first-level court. On September 27,
2013, he applied for the vacant position of Presiding Judge in the following
Regional Trial Courts (RTCs): Branch 31, Tagum City; Branch 13, Davao City; and
Branch 6, Prosperidad, Agusan Del Sur In a letter2 dated December 18, 2013,
JBC's Office of Recruitment, Selection and Nomination, informed the petitioner
that he was not included in the list of candidates for the said stations. On
the same date, the petitioner sent a letter, through electronic mail, seeking
reconsideration of his non-inclusion in the list of considered applicants and
protesting the inclusion of applicants who did not pass the prejudicature
examination. The petitioner was informed by the JBC Executive Officer, through
a letter3 dated February 3, 2014, that his protest and reconsideration was duly
noted by the JBC en banc. However, its decision not to include his name in the
list of applicants was upheld due to the JBC's long-standing policy of opening
the chance for promotion to second-level courts to, among others, incumbent
judges who have served in their current position for at least five years, and
since the petitioner has been a judge only for more than a year, he was
excluded from the list. This caused the petitioner to take recourse to this
Court
ISSUE
: WON the writ of certiorari and
prohibition cannot issue to prevent the JBC from performing its principal
function under the Constitution to recommend appointees to the Judiciary
because the JBC is not a tribunal exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
function
HELD
: The remedies of certiorari and prohibition are tenable. "The present
Rules of Court uses two special civil actions for determining and correcting
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
In
this case, it is clear that the JBC does not fall within the scope of a
tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions. In
the process of selecting and screening applicants, the JBC neither acted in any
judicial or quasi-judicial capacity nor assumed unto itself any performance of
judicial or quasi-judicial prerogative. However, since the formulation of
guidelines and criteria, including the policy that the petitioner now assails,
is necessary and incidental to the exercise of the JBC's constitutional
mandate, a determination must be made on whether the JBC has acted with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in issuing and
enforcing the said policy.
Besides,
the Court can appropriately take cognizance of this case by virtue of the
Court's power of supervision over the JBC. Jurisprudence provides that the
power of supervision is the power of oversight, or the authority to see that
subordinate officers perform their duties.
Following
this definition, the supervisory authority of the Court over the JBC is to see
to it that the JBC complies with its own rules and procedures. Thus, when the
policies of the JBC are being attacked, then the Court, through its supervisory
authority over the JBC, has the duty to inquire about the matter and ensure
that the JBC complies with its own rules
The
remedy of mandamus cannot be availed of by the petitioner in assailing JBC's
policy. It is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamus that the
applicant should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must be
the imperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required. The remedy
of mandamus, as an extraordinary writ, lies only to compel an officer to
perform a ministerial duty, not a discretionary one.14 Clearly, the use of
discretion and the performance of a ministerial act are mutually exclusive.
Clearly, to be included as an applicant to second-level judge is not properly
compellable by mandamus inasmuch as it involves the exercise of sound
discretion by the JBC
The
petition for declaratory relief is improper. "An action for declaratory
relief should be filed by a person interested under a deed, a will, a contract
or other written instrument, and whose rights are affected by a statute, an
executive order, a regulation or an ordinance. The relief sought under this
remedy includes the interpretation and determination of the validity of the
written instrument and the judicial declaration of the parties' rights or
duties thereunder."
In
this case, the petition for declaratory relief did not involve an unsound
policy. Rather, the petition specifically sought a judicial declaration that
the petitioner has the right to be included in the list of applicants although
he failed to meet JBC's five-year requirement policy. Again, the Court
reiterates that no person possesses a legal right under the Constitution to be
included in the list of nominees for vacant judicial positions. The opportunity
of appointment to judicial office is a mere privilege, and not a judicially
enforceable right that may be properly claimed by any person
Furthermore,
the instant petition must necessarily fail because this Court does not have
original jurisdiction over a petition for declaratory relief even if only
questions of law are involved.18 The special civil action of declaratory relief
falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the appropriate RTC pursuant to
Section 1919 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A.No. 7691
Therefore,
by virtue of the Court's supervisory duty over the JBC and in the exercise of
its expanded judicial power, the Court assumes jurisdiction over the present
petition. But in any event, even if the Court will set aside procedural
infirmities
No comments:
Post a Comment