Facts:

The case revolves around Beatriz C. Aragones and 62 other petitioners, all of whom are first-grade civil service eligibles under Republic Act 1080, as amended by Republic Act 1844. They are primarily certified public accountants, with four also being members of the Philippine Bar. In 1963, the Auditor General extended permanent appointments to these petitioners, assigning them various roles such as auditors and supervising auditors. These appointment papers were submitted to the Acting Civil Service Commissioner, Abelardo Subido, for attestation. However, the Commissioner refused to attest to the appointments, stating that he would only approve them as "provisional" under Section 24(c) of the Civil Service Act, arguing that lawyers were not eligible for auditor positions. The Auditor General contested this view, asserting that lawyers were indeed eligible, and escalated the matter to the President of the Philippines. The President referred the issue back to the Comm...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Petitioners are 63 individuals certified as first-grade civil service eligibles under Republic Act 1080, as amended by Republic Act 1844.
• They are predominantly certified public accountants, with four of them also being members of the Philippine Bar.
• Sometime in 1963, the Auditor General extended to them permanent appointments as auditors or supervising auditors; some were original appointments while others were promotional.
• The appointment papers were forwarded to the respondent, the Acting Civil Service Commissioner, for attestation.

Points of Controversy on Appointments

• The Commissioner refused a straightforward attestation of the appointments and instead indicated that he would only approve the appointments as “provisional” under Section 24(c) of the Civil Service Act.
• A major issue emerged on whether lawyers (or those with dual qualifications as CPA and member of the Bar) are eligible for the positions of auditor and supervising auditor.
• The Auditor General, asserting that lawyers are eligible, communicated his justification through a memorandum dated April 25, 1963, which was sent along with a letter dated May 3, 1963.
• Despite this, the Commissioner maintained his position in a communication on September 2, 1963.

Escalation and Administrative Proceedings

• The Auditor General elevated the matter to the President of the Philippines on October 8, 1963.
• The Office of the President referred the issue back to the Civil Service Commissioner, who on his second indorsement on July 31, 1964, reiterated his earlier opinion and further clarified that for auditors and supervising auditors, only the Auditor examination would be recognized as the appropriate test of eligibility.
• On September 8, 1964, the Commissioner announced that qualifying examinations for auditing examiner and auditor would be held on January 16, 1965, with applications to be filed by November 27, 1964.

Filing of the Petition and Subsequent Developments

• On November 25, 1964, two days prior to the application deadline, petitioners sought a writ of mandamus and prohibition by filing a petition against the Commissioner in the Court of First Instance of Manila.
• The reliefs sought were multifold, including:
• A declaration that the Commissioner acted without authority.
• A nullification of the provisional appointments and an order compelling attestation to their permanent status.
• A declaration that lawyers and CPAs are eligible for the positions.
• An injunction restraining the Commissioner from forcing them to take the scheduled qualifying examination.
• An award of damages in the form of P10,000.00 for attorneys’ fees.
• On December 18, 1964, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Commissioner, filed a "Manifestation and Motion to Declare Case as Moot" based on a Memorandum Circular dated December 14, 1964.
• The Memorandum Circular stated that, in the absence of an appropriate register of auditor eligibles, the Bar, CPA, and First Grade eligibilities were considered the most nearly appropriate qualifications for the positions, thereby allowing for permanent appointments subject to later examinations once a register was established.
• Eventually, permanent appointments were issued to petitioners, and on January 6, 1965, petitioners registered their written opposition.
• The trial court dismissed the case as moot on January 11, 1965, since no controversy remained regarding the issue, and further motions for reconsideration by the petitioners were denied.

Issue:

Question on the Scope of the Commissioner’s Authority

• Whether the Commissioner merely attested to the appointments or actually approved them, thereby affecting the permanency and legality of those appointments.
• The implications of the statutory provisions in the Civil Service Act versus those in Republic Act 2716 regarding the appointment process.

Eligibility for the Auditor and Supervising Auditor Positions

• Whether a CPA whose eligibility had been converted into first grade under Republic Act 1080 is required to take an auditor examination for the position of auditor and supervising auditor.
• The appropriate interpretation of the qualifications based on the Memorandum Circular and the corresponding statutory framework.

Validity of the Relief Sought Concerning the Qualifying Examinations

• Whether there is a justiciable controversy in preventing the Commissioner’s imposition of the qualifying examinations, given that the permanent appointments had already been confirmed.
• The relevance and effect of the examinations that were subsequently conducted on February 28, 1965.

Damages in the Form of Attorneys’ Fees

• Whether the prayer for damages (attorneys’ fees) sustains the continuation of the case despite the substantial resolution of the underlying appointment issues.
• The sufficiency and specificity of the allegations of bad faith regarding the Commissioner’s conduct.

Consideration of Public Interest

• Whether the existence of a potential ongoing or future controversy in government appointments justifies a ruling on academic issues despite the current moot state of the matter.
• The broader implications of the Commissioner’s actions in affecting the process and administration of appointments in the government.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)