Facts:

The case revolves around petitioners Eliseo Alinsugay, Purita Villaflor, Paz Gandiongco, and Celso Remo, who were appointed as laborers in various offices of the provincial government of Cebu. Their appointments were signed by Governor Rene Espina and subsequently submitted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for attestation. However, the Cebu Provincial Auditor informed the Provincial Treasurer that these appointments, along with those of forty-four other laborers, required approval from the Provincial Board to be valid, according to Section 2081 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 528. The Provincial Treasurer communicated this to the governor, who was reluctant to submit them due to impending local elections, which delayed consideration by the board.

Once the elections occurred, the governor presented the appointments to the newly constituted Provincial Board, which approved some but disapproved the appointments of the petitioners. Following this dis

...

Facts:

Appointment Process

• Petitioners Eliseo Alinsugay, Purita Villaflor, Paz Gandiongco, and Celso Remo were appointed as laborers in various offices of the provincial government of Cebu.
• Their appointments were signed by then-Governor Rene Espina and subsequently submitted to the local office of the Civil Service Commission for attestation.

Requirement for Approval

• The provincial auditor advised that, pursuant to Section 2081 of the Administrative Code as amended by Republic Act No. 528, appointments in the unclassified civil service must be approved by the provincial board.
• Acting on this advice, the provincial treasurer endorsed a request to the provincial board for “approval or disapproval” of the 48 appointments, including those of the petitioners.

Provincial Board Deliberations and Subsequent Developments

• During a regular session of the provincial board, minutes revealed that while the vice-governor and two board members were in favor of approval, the governor expressed his desire to “abstain.”
• A communication from the Civil Service Commission reaffirmed that approval by the provincial board was essential for the validity and effectiveness of appointments in non-competitive positions.
• The governor, constrained by this directive, subsequently submitted the appointments despite a delay due to the board not meeting (in part due to the upcoming local elections).

Post-Election Actions and Reconsideration Efforts

• After the elections, the new provincial board reviewed the appointments; some were approved while others, including those of the petitioners, were disapproved.
• Petitioners sought the governor’s reconsideration of the disapproval, but their request was denied.

Relief Sought and Proceedings in Lower Courts

• Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus and damages against various respondents, including the governor, vice-governor, members of the provincial board, the provincial treasurer, and the provincial auditor.
• They prayed for a judicial order to continue them in their employment, include them in the provincial plantilla or a supplemental budget, and appropriate funds to cover their salaries. Additionally, they sought moral damages, attorney’s fees, and other consequential damages.
• The Court of First Instance dismissed the petition on the ground that the appointments were incomplete without the requisite approval by the provincial board and proper attestation by the Civil Service Commission.
• The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision.
• The petition was then consolidated with a similar case (G.R. No. L-47472) involving Valentino Taboy and others, where the Court reaffirmed the requirement of provincial board approval.

Issue:

Validity of the Appointments

• Whether the petitioners can be dismissed as laborers even though their appointments were attested by the Civil Service Commission and they had received salaries reflected in audited payrolls.
• Whether the absence of the provincial board’s approval renders the appointments incomplete and therefore invalid.

Liability for Illegal Dismissal

• Whether the private respondents, specifically the members of the provincial board who disapproved the appointments, can be held liable for moral damages arising from the alleged illegal dismissal of the petitioners.
• Whether any malice or wrongful intent on the part of the board members could establish such liability.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)