G.R. No. 228449 - Aluag vs. BIR Multi-Purpose Cooperative

Respondent Lourdes R. Ronidel, an employee of the Presidential Commission for the Urban Poor (PCUP), held the position of Development Management Officer (DMO) III.
On May 25, 2000, she applied for a promotion to one of the two vacant positions of DMO V.
The minimum qualification standards for the DMO V position required:

At the time of her application, respondent possessed a Master's in Management, relevant work experiences in several acting and assistant director roles, and certifications from relevant trainings.
After evaluation by the PCUP National Selection Board (NSB), respondent was declared qualified—together with another candidate, Alicia S. Diaz—for the promotion to DMO V.

Promotional appointments were issued by then PCUP Chairperson Atty. Donna Z. Gasgonia:

Petitioner Percival C. Chavez was appointed as the new Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of PCUP on February 19, 2001, but took his oath and assumed office on February 26, 2001.
On March 9, 2001, petitioner issued a memorandum instructing the PCUP Human Resources Department to halt the processing of respondent’s appointment papers pending an official assessment.
Petitioner sought to recall or invalidate respondent’s appointment on several grounds:

That respondent did not meet the required “experience” for DMO V.
That Gasgonia’s authority ceased upon petitioner's appointment on February 19.
That respondent’s appointment was a "midnight appointment," making it procedurally improper.
That the appointment was not in accordance with pertinent laws and rules.
That even if initially approved, the appointment could be recalled for non-compliance with PCUP’s promotion plan.

Aggrieved by the halted processing of her appointment, respondent appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), National Capital Region (NCR).
On January 17, 2003, the CSC-NCR issued an order upholding respondent’s promotional appointment as valid, opining that:

At the time of her appointment (February 23, 2001), Gasgonia was still the functional appointing authority since petitioner had not yet assumed office (oath taken on February 26, 2001).
The appointment was not a “midnight appointment” as it had been under deliberation for almost a year.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 18, 2003.
Petitioner then elevated the issue to the CSC, which on September 23, 2004, granted his appeal by invalidating the appointment for non-compliance with certain procedural requirements—specifically, the failure of PCUP to submit two copies of the monthly Report on Personnel Action (ROPA) as mandated by CSC Resolution No. 97368.
The CSC’s decision was, however, later set aside by the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed and annulled the CSC resolutions and upheld the order of January 17, 2003, on the grounds that:

The responsibility for ROPA submission rested with the PCUP, not the individual appointee.
Technical lapses on the part of the agency should not prejudice the appointee.

The central issue was whether the appointment extended by Gasgonia before petitioner’s assumption of office was valid despite the subsequent challenge by petitioner.
Related sub-issues included:

The authority of Gasgonia to make the appointment despite petitioner’s appointment as the new PCUP Chairperson.
Whether respondent met the qualification and experience requirements.
Whether the procedural lapse of not submitting the ROPA rendered the appointment inefficacious.

Whether Gasgonia, as the incumbent chairperson before petitioner’s complete assumption of office, had the authority to issue the promotional appointment to respondent.
The significance of the timing: Gasgonia’s authority remained effective until petitioner took his oath on February 26, 2001.

Whether respondent met the “experience” and other qualification requirements for the position of DMO V.
The evidentiary basis regarding her educational background, work experience, and relevant trainings.

Whether the failure of PCUP to submit two required copies of the Report on Personnel Action (ROPA), as stipulated in CSC Resolution No. 97368, could legally or equitably be held against respondent’s appointment.
Whether such a procedural lapse should invalidate a substantive appointment given that the responsibility to comply lay with PCUP and not the appointee.