Orencia vs Enrile

 G.R. No. L-28997 February 22, 1974 FELICISIMO M. ORENCIA, petitioner-appellant, vs. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, as Secretary of Justice Facts: On June 20, 1967, petitioner-appellant filed the said petition for mandamus with preliminary injunction before the ManilaCourt of First Instance against respondents docketed as Civil Case No. 69840, alleging substantially that he is the deputy clerk of courtof the Clerks of Court Division of the Land Registration Commission, an he has been performing functions of Assistant Chief of saiddivision and has been considered and recognized as such until Rep. Act 4040, enacted June 18, 1964 increasing the salaries of Assistant Chiefs of Divisions, among others, implemented where he was left out while co-assistant chief of the nine (9) other divisionsof the Land Registration Commission were so recognized and extended increased compensation , in spite of his protest torespondents Secretary of Justice, Land Registration Commissioner, and Commissioner of Civil Service; and to add insult to injury,respondent Guillermina M. Gener, was appointed assistant of the Clerks of Court Division, when there was no vacancy to said positionand given an increased compensation of P9,600.00 for the said position, while petitioner continued to receive the old rate of P3,070.08 per annum, and praying that he be extended similar recognition as assistant chief of the Clerks of Court Division of theLand Registration Commission, and paid the corresponding salary under Rep. Act 4040 of Court Division of the Land RegistrationCommission, and paid the corresponding salary under Rep. Act 4040 and that the appointme nt of respondent Guillermina M.Gener be declared null and void, with damages and attorney's fees. On Ju ly 17, 1967, respondents filed their answer, and afterusual admissions and denials, interposed a defense that petitioner is unqualified for the position of Assistant Chief, Clerks of CourtDivision, and being a new position created under Republic Act 4040, the same can only be filed by a qualified person; that respondent[Gener], being a lawyer, is more qualified than petitioner who is only a high school graduate with second grade civil serviceeligibility, and praying that the petition be dismissed."On July 6, 1964, petitioner formally requested respondent commissioner of Land Registration commission for recommendation andpayment of his differential salary, which request was, however, denied on July 10, 1964. ... On September 1, 1964, petitionerappealed to the Secretary of Justice, but appeal was likewise denied ... . From the ruling of the Secretary of Justice, heappealed to respondent Commissioner of Civil Service on June 3, 1965, and, again, he was rebuffed on February 21, 1966 ... . On July29, 1966, said respondent Gener was appointed  Assistant Chief of the Cl erks of Court Division eff ective July 1, 1966, by therespondent Secretary of Justice, upon recommendation of respondent Land Registration Commission, and duly attested to by theCommissioner of Civil Service. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to Assistant Chief position in the Clerk of Court Division of Land RegistrationCommission. HELD: NO.WHEREFORE, the lower court decision of March 26, 1968, dismissing the petition for mandamus, is affirmed. No costs.Mandamus is the proper remedy if it could be shown that there was neglect on the part of a tribunal in the performance of an act,which specifically the law enjoins as a duty or an unlawful exclusion of a party from the use and enjoyment of a right to which he isentitled. According to former Chief Justice Moran, only specific legal rights may be enforced by mandamus if they are clear andcertain. If the legal rights of the petition are not well-defined, clear, and certain, the petition must be dismissed.It is not merely that petitioner does not have a clear legal right. The more accurate way of putting it is that he has no right at all to theposition of Assistant Chief to the Clerks of Court Division. The ingenuity displayed by counsel, worthy of a better cause, it might beadded, cannot obscure the undeniable fact that without Republic Act No. 4040, there would be no such position that is now thesubject of dispute between him and respondent Gener.On the other hand, it is not disputed that petitioner's scholastic background is much more limited, he being merely a high schoolgraduate. Under such circumstances, his previous experience in his capacity as Deputy Clerk of Court attesting to his years of servicecould not avail. The appointing official, especially so where his position is a constitutional creation, as in this case, must beleft that necessary latitude of choice as to who can best discharge the responsibilities of the office wher  e the vacancy occurs.The Secretary of Justice, and the Commissioner of Civil Service on the precise point at issue, "Courts will should respect thecontemporaneous construction placed upon a statute by the executive officers whose duty it is to enforce it, and unlesssuch interpretation is clearly erroneous will ordinarily be controlled thereby."