Lacanilao vs. Deleon, 147 SCRA 286

Case: Lacanilao vs. Deleon, 147 SCRA 286

Topic:  Position of Chief of the Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center — Aquaculture Department.

Major arguments relied by the Supreme Court:

§  Supreme Court noted from the letter that the SEAFDEC Council of Directors has not approved the nomination of respondent (Deleon) as chief of the Aquaculture Department. So far as the records of this case in this Court show, the SEAFDEC Council has not taken any further action on such nomination.

§  The recommendation in favour of the respondent must be regarded as legally ineffective for the fundamental reason that there existed no vacancy to which the respondent could be nominated by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and to which the respondent could be appointed by the SEAFDEC Council.

§  Supreme Court have no doubt that Dr. Lacanilao was lawfully entitled to hold the position of the Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC, as of 21 November 1986 when the respondent and his assistants and retainers introjected themselves in the offices of the Aquaculture Department.

§  Until the tenure of the petitioner is lawfully terminated in accordance with the laws and regulations governing such tenure, no nomination for the same position can be approved and given effect It is clear that the nomination of the respondent for a position then lawfully filled in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement Establishing the SEAFDEC, did not have the effect of removing or otherwise terminating the two-year term of the petitioner.

§  The power to appoint having been vested by Article 6 of the SEAFDEC Agreement in the Council, the, power to remove must likewise be deemed lodged in the Council, and not in the nominating member-government. It is worth noting that under Article 6 (2) of the Agreement, the power to appoint the Department-Chiefs and the Deputy Department-Chiefs cannot be delegated by the Council to the Secretary-General. It follows, under the present terms of the SEAFDEC Agreement, that the power to remove cannot similarly be delegated to the Secretary-General.

§  Supreme Court hold, accordingly, that the petitioner is entitled to the position of Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC, for the duration of his term or until that term is otherwise ended conformably with applicable law, including applicable regulations of the SEAFDEC.

§  In the exercise of the broad jurisdiction of Supreme Court and in the interest of prompt and substantial justice, the Supreme Court treat the petition in this case as a petition for injunction, the respondent's comment as his answer thereto and dispose of the case accordingly.

§  The Supreme Court declared that the respondent is hereby enjoined from assuming the position and from discharging, or continuing to discharge, directly or indirectly, the powers and functions of the Chief of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC. All acts, contracts and directives done or issued by the respondent, or by persons appointed or designated by him, are invalid and ineffective unless adopted or ratified by the petitioner or other competent authority of the Aquaculture Department, SEAFDEC.