Pefianco vs.

Moral
G.R. no. 132248 January 19, 2000
Bellosillo, J.

Facts:

- July 1994: DECS Secretary Ricardo Gloria (Secretary Gloria) filed a complaint against
respondent Maria Luisa Moral (Moral), then chief librarian of the catalog division of the National
Library, for dishonesty, grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.
o Moral is charged with the pilferage of some historical documents under her control and
supervision as Division Chief, as well as keeping in her possession some 41 historical
documents which were then missing from the vaults of the National Library.
- The DECS Investigating Committee conducted several hearings on the complaint. Eventually,
Secretary Gloria issued a resolution finding Moral as guilty of the offenses charged, and was
subsequently dismissed from government service.
o Moral received a copy of the resolution, but did not appeal.
- Thereafter, Moral filed a petition for the production of the DECS Investigation Committee Report
purportedly to guide her next move. This was denied by Secretary Gloria.
o She reiterated her request, which was again denied by the Secretary.
- In response to this, Moral instituted an action for mandamus and injunction before the RTC
against Sec. Gloria, praying that she be furnished a copy of the DECS Investigation Committee
Report and that the order enforcing her dismissal be enjoined until she receives said report.
o Sec. Gloria moved to dismiss the case (for lack of cause of action), but the RTC denied
his motion to dismiss.
- He then assailed the denial to the CA, which sustained the RTC’s decision.
o CA: Sec. Gloria should’ve filed an MR, and that since the denial of the motion to dismiss
is interlocutory, the same is not appealable.
o (Meanwhile, Sec. Gloria was replaced by Sec. Pefianco, petitioner in this case.)
Hence, this petition.

Held:

- The RTC’s order denying the Secretary’s motion to dismiss is a patent nullity for failure to
comply with the provisions of the Rules of Court requiring that a resolution on a motion to
dismiss should clearly and distinctly state the reasons therefor.
o Rule 16 of the RoC clearly states that “in every case, the resolution shall state clearly and
distinctly the reasons therefor.”
o The order given by the RTC did not state the reason for denying the prayer. Hence, this
order is a nullity.
- Mandamus will only lie if the movant has a clear legal right to the thing demanded, and that it is
the imperative duty of the official to perform the act required.
o In other words, the mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused, of
a ministerial duty.
 o In this case, Moral miserably failed to demonstrate that she has a clear legal right to the
DECS Investigation Committee Report:
 She failed to appeal. Nothing then prevented the DECS resolution from
becoming final and executory. Hence, furnishing her or not with the report will
serve no useful purpose.
 Also, a respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of
the findings and recommendations of any investigating committee created to
inquire into the charges against him. He is only entitled to the administrative
decision based on substantial evidence made of record as well as a
reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and present evidence during the
hearings of the said committee.
 The said investigation report is, after all, an internal communication between the
DECS Secretary and the Investigation Committee, and is intended to be
confidential. Only when the losing party has filed and perfected an appeal to the
CSC may all the records of the case, including the aforesaid report, be forwarded
to the CSC. Only then may the said report be furnished to Moral.
o Also, the DECS resolution is complete in itself for purposes of appeal to the SCS
(contains sufficient findings of fact + conclusion of law upon which Moral’s removal
from office was grounded). The SC cannot see how Moral was prejudiced by the denial
of access to the investigation report.

Petition Granted.