Scribd
Upload
85 views2 pages

VALENTIN L. LEGASPI, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent

Valentin L. Legaspi filed a petition for mandamus against the Civil Service Commission to compel them to disclose the civil service eligibility information of two government employees. The Solicitor General objected that Legaspi did not have standing to sue since he did not show a clear legal right or direct interest in the information. However, the Court ruled that when a mandamus proceeding involves a public right, like the right to information on matters of public concern, mere citizenship is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of personal interest. As a citizen, Legaspi had standing to assert the public's right to the information. The Court found Legaspi had properly anchored his case on the public's right to information and denied the objection to

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views2 pages

VALENTIN L. LEGASPI, Petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent

Valentin L. Legaspi filed a petition for mandamus against the Civil Service Commission to compel them to disclose the civil service eligibility information of two government employees. The Solicitor General objected that Legaspi did not have standing to sue since he did not show a clear legal right or direct interest in the information. However, the Court ruled that when a mandamus proceeding involves a public right, like the right to information on matters of public concern, mere citizenship is sufficient to satisfy the requirement of personal interest. As a citizen, Legaspi had standing to assert the public's right to the information. The Court found Legaspi had properly anchored his case on the public's right to information and denied the objection to

Uploaded by

Carlota Nicolas Villaroman
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

VALENTIN L. LEGASPI, petitioner, vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, respondent.

[G.R. No. 72119. May 29, 1987.]


Facts:
The fundamental right of the people to information on matters of public concern was invoked
in a special civil action for Mandamus instituted by petitioner Valentin L. Legaspi against the
Civil Service Commission. The respondent had earlier denied Legaspi's request for
information on the civil service eligibilities of certain persons employed as sanitarians in the
Health Department of Cebu City. These government employees, Julian Sibonghanoy and
Mariano Agas, had allegedly represented themselves as civil service eligibles who passed the
civil service examinations for sanitarians.
Claiming that his right to be informed of the eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano
Agas is guaranteed by the Constitution, and that he has no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy to acquire the information, petitioner prays for the issuance of the extraordinary writ
of Mandamus to compel the respondent Commission to disclose said information.
The Solicitor General interposes procedural objections to this Petition. He challenges the
petitioner's standing to sue upon the ground that the latter does not possess any clear legal
right to be informed of the civil service eligibilities of the government employees concerned.
He calls attention to the alleged failure of the petitioner to show his actual interest in securing
this particular information. He further argues that there is no ministerial duty on the part of
the Commission to furnish the petitioner with the information he seeks.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has standing to initiate a petition for mandamus against
the respondent.
Ruling:
To be given due course, a Petition for Mandamus must have been instituted by a party
aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person which
unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right. (Anti-Chinese League of
the Philippines vs. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012 [1947]). The petitioner in every case must therefore be
an "aggrieved party" in the sense that he possesses a clear legal right to be enforced and a
direct interest in the duty or act to be performed.
In this case, the respondent takes issue on the personality of the petitioner to bring this suit. It
is asserted that, the instant Petition is bereft of any allegation of Legaspi's actual interest in
the civil service eligibilities of Julian Sibonghanoy and Mariano Agas. At most there is a
vague reference to an unnamed client in whose behalf he had allegedly acted when he made
inquiries on the subject (Petition, Rollo, p. 3).
But what is clear upon the face of the Petition is that the petitioner has firmly anchored his
case upon the right of the people to information on matters of public concern, which, by its
very nature, is a public right. It has been held that:
. . . when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus
is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the
real party in interest and the relator at whose instigation the proceedings are
instituted need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result,
it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the
execution of the laws . . . (Tanada et al. vs. Tuvera, et al., G.R. No. L-63915,
April 24, 1985, 136 SCRA 27, 36).
From the foregoing, it becomes apparent that when a Mandamus proceeding involves the
assertion of a public right, the requirement of personal interest is satisfied by the mere

fact that the petitioner is a citizen, and therefore, part of the general "public" which
possesses the right.
The Court had opportunity to define the word "public" in the Subido case, supra, when it held
that even those who have no direct or tangible interest in any real estate transaction are part of
the "public" to whom "(a)ll records relating to registered lands in the Office of the Register of
Deeds shall be open . . ." (Sec. 56, Act No. 496, as amended). In the words of the Court:
. . . "Public" is a comprehensive, all-inclusive term. Properly construed, it
embraces every person. To say that only those who have a present and
existing interest of a pecuniary character in the particular information
sought are given the right of inspection is to make an unwarranted
distinction. . . . (Subido vs. Ozaeta, supra at p. 387).
The petitioner, being a citizen who, as such is clothed with personality to seek redress for
the alleged obstruction of the exercise of the public right. The court finds no cogent
reason to deny his standing to bring the suit.

You might also like