CONRADO L. DE RAMA, Petitioner, v.

THE COURT OF APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION, THE CIVIL SERVICE

COMMISSION), ELADIO MARTINEZ, DIVINO DE JESUS, MORELL AYALA, ARISTEO CATALLA, DAISY
PORTA, FLORDELIZA ORIASEL, GRACIELA GLORY, FELECIDAD ORINDAY, MA. PETRA MUFFET LUCE,
ELSA MARINO, BERNARDITA MENDOZA, JANE MACATANGAY, ADELFO GLODOVIZA and FLORINO
RAMOS, Respondents.

[G.R. No. 131136. February 28, 2001.]

TOPIC: Human Resources and Development [Secs. 76-97]

FACTS:

Upon his assumption to the position of Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner Conrado L. de Rama
wrote a letter dated July 13, 1995 to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), seeking the recall of the
appointments of fourteen (14) municipal employees.

Petitioner de Rama justified his recall request on the allegation that the appointments of the said
employees were "midnight" appointments of the former mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja, done in violation of
Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

SECTION 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his
term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to
executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety. (Emphasis supplied)

While the matter was pending before the CSC, three of the appointed municipal employees, namely: Elsa
Marino, Morell Ayala, and Flordeliza Oriazel, filed with the CSC a claim for payment of their salaries, alleging
that although their appointments were declared permanent by Conrado Gulim, Director II of the CSC Field
Office based in Quezon. Petitioner de Rama withheld the payment of their salaries and benefits pursuant to
Office Order No. 95-01, which was issued on June 30, 1995, wherein the appointments of the said 14
employees were recalled.

CSC (Legal and Quasi-Judicial Division) Order

CSC issued an Order stating employees cannot be deprived of their salaries and benefits by the
unilateral act of the newly-assumed mayor. Since the claimants-employees had assumed their respective
positions and performed their duties pursuant to their appointments, they are therefore entitled to receive
the salaries and benefits appurtenant to their positions. CSC cited Rule V, Section 10 of the Omnibus Rules
which provides that “if the appointee has assumed the duties of the position, he shall be entitled to receive his
salary at once without awaiting the approval of his appointment by the Commission."

CSC Resolution on Petitioner’s request for the Recall of the Appointments

On April 30, 1996, the CSC denied petitioner’s request for the recall of the appointments of the
fourteen employees, for lack of merit:
 Citing Rule V, Sections 9 and 10 of the Omnibus Rules, CSC declared that the appointments of the
said employees were issued in accordance with pertinent laws and were effective immediately,
and cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority until disapproved by the CSC.
 Petitioner’s allegation that these were "midnight" appointments is also dismissed, pointing out
that the Constitutional provision relied upon by petitioner prohibits only those
 appointments made by an outgoing President and cannot be made to apply to local
elective officials. Thus, the CSC opined, "the appointing authority can validly issue appointments
until his term has expired, as long as the appointee meets the qualification standards for the
position."
 The validity of the appointments is upheld on the ground that:
i. They had already been approved by the Head of the CSC Field Office in Lucena City; and
ii. Petitioner’s failed to present evidence that would warrant the revocation or recall of the
said appointments

Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the CSC’s Resolution and Order of the CSC Legal and
Quasi-Judicial Division, averring that the CSC was without jurisdiction:
(1) To refuse to revoke the subject appointments;
(2) To uphold the validity of said appointments, even assuming that there was failure to present
evidence that would prove that these appointments contravened existing laws or rules; and that
(3) The CSC erred in finding the appointments valid despite the existence of circumstances showing
that the same were fraudulently issued and processed.

On November 21, 1996, the CSC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. The CSC uphold
the validity of the appointments and reiterated its ruling that in the absence of any showing that these
alleged midnight appointments were defective in form and in substance, nor is there evidence presented to
show that subject appointments were issued in contravention of law or rules, these appointments are deemed
valid and in effect. The CSC also cited the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Aquino v. Civil Service
Commission, wherein this Court held that:

It is well-settled that once an appointment is issued and the moment the appointee assumes a position
in the civil service under a completed appointment, he acquires a legal, not merely equitable right (to
the position), which is protected not only by statute, but also by the Constitution, and cannot be taken
away from him either by revocation of the appointment, or by removal, except for cause, and with
previous notice and hearing. (Emphasis supplied)

Petitioner then filed a petition for review before the CA, arguing that the CSC arrived at the erroneous
conclusion after it ignored his "supplement to the consolidated appeal and motion for reconsideration"
wherein he laid out evidence showing that the subject appointments were obtained through fraud.

CA Resolution
The CA issued a Resolution dated May 16, 1997 which held that there was no abuse of the power of
appointment on the part of the outgoing mayor. Petition for review is denied for lack of merit.
 The fact that the appointments of Marino, Ayala, Ramos, Mendoza and Glory were made more than
four (4) months after the publication of the vacancies to which they were appointed is of no moment.
 Republic Act No. 7041 does not provide that every appointment to the local government service must
be made within four (4) months from publication of the vacancies. Section 80 of said Act provides:

SECTION 80. Public Notice of Vacancy: Personnel Selection Board. — (a) Whenever a local chief
executive decides to fill a vacant career position, there shall be posted notices of the vacancy in at least
three (3) conspicuous public places in the local government unit concerned for a period of not less than
fifteen (15) days.
 (b) There shall be established in every province, city or municipality a personnel selection board to
assist the local chief executive in the judicious and objective selection of personnel for employment as
well as for promotion, and in the formulation of such policies as would contribute to employee welfare.

(c) The personnel selection board shall be headed by the local sanggunian concerned. A representative
of the Civil Service Commission, if any, and the personnel officer of the local government unit concerned
shall be ex officio members of the board.

 CSC’s own Circular Order No. 27, Section 7, Series of 1991, require that vacant positions published in
a government quarterly must be filled up before the advent of the succeeding quarter.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the appellate court erred in upholding the
CSC’s resolutions despite the following defects:

I. No screening process and no criteria were adopted by the Personnel Selection Board in
nominating the respondents;
II. No posting in three (3) conspicuous public places of notice of vacancy as required by the rules
and the law;
III. Merit and fitness requirements were not observed by the selection board and by the appointing
authority as required by the Civil Service rules;
IV. Petitioner has valid grounds to recall the appointments of respondents.

CA Resolution
In a Resolution dated October 20, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for
reconsideration.

Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not, under Art. VII, Sec. 15 of the Constitution, the appointments made by the outgoing
Mayor are prohibited.

RULING: NO

The CSC ruled correctly that the said prohibition applies only to presidential appointments. There
is no law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his or
her tenure.

A thorough perusal of the records reveal that the CSC’s ruling is supported by the evidence and the law:
1. The 14 employees were duly appointed following two meetings of the Personnel Selection Board
held on May 31 and June 26, 1995.
2. There is no showing that any of the private respondents were not qualified for the positions they
were appointed to.
3. Their appointments were duly attested to by the Head of the CSC field office at Lucena City and
by virtue thereof, they had already assumed their appointive positions even before petitioner
himself assumed his elected position as town mayor. Consequently, their appointments took
effect immediately and cannot be unilaterally revoked or recalled by petitioner.
 It has been held that upon the issuance of an appointment and the appointee’s assumption of the position
in the civil service, "he acquires a legal right which cannot be taken away either by revocation of the
appointment or by removal except for cause and with previous notice and hearing." Moreover, it is well-settled
that the person assuming a position in the civil service under a completed appointment acquires a legal, not
just an equitable, right to the position. This right is protected not only by statute, but by the Constitution as
well, which right cannot be taken away by either revocation of the appointment, or by removal, unless there
is valid cause to do so, provided that there is previous notice and hearing.

Petitioner admitted that his very first official act upon assuming the position of town mayor was to issue
Office Order No. 95-01 which recalled the appointments of the private respondents. There was no previous
notice and hearing accorded to the latter. It was petitioner who acted in undue haste to remove the private
respondents without regard for the simple requirements of due process of law and in doing so, he
overstepped the bounds of his authority.

Rule V, Section 9 of the Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the Revised Administrative Code
specifically provides that "an appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the
appointing authority and shall remain in force and in effect until disapproved by the Commission." Thus, it is
the CSC that is authorized to recall an appointment initially approved, but only when such appointment
and approval are proven to be in disregard of applicable provisions of the civil service law and regulations.
Moreover, Section 10 of the same rule and Section 20 of Rule VI provides:

SECTION 10. An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules shall take effect
immediately upon its issuance by the appointing authority, and if the appointee has assumed the duties
of the position, he shall be entitled to receive his salary at once without awaiting the approval of his
appointment by the Commission. The appointment shall remain effective until disapproved by the
Commission. In no case shall an appointment take effect earlier than the date of its issuance.

SECTION 20. Notwithstanding the initial approval of an appointment, the same may be recalled on any
of the following grounds:

a) Non-compliance with the procedures/criteria provided in the agency’s Merit Promotion

Plan;
b) Failure to pass through the agency’s Selection/Promotion Board;
c) Violation of the existing collective agreement between management and employees
relative to promotion; or
d) Violation of other existing civil service law, rules and regulations.

The only reason advanced by the petitioner to justify the recall was that these were "midnight
appointments," however the appointments of the private respondents may only be recalled on the above-
cited grounds. The CSC correctly ruled that the constitutional prohibition on so-called "midnight
appointments," specifically those made within two (2) months immediately prior to the next
presidential elections, applies only to the President or Acting President.

If ever there were other procedural or legal requirements that were violated in implementing the
appointments of the private respondents, the same were not seasonably brought before the Civil Service
Commission. These cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
DECISION:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition for review is DENIED and the Resolution of the
CA affirming the CSC Resolutions is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.