Case Digest (G.R. No. 131136)
Facts:
Conrado L. de Rama v. The Court of Appeals (Ninth Division, the Civil Service Commission), G.R. No. 131136, February 28, 2001, Supreme Court En Banc, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.Upon assuming office as Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner Conrado L. de Rama (petitioner) sought the recall by letter dated July 13, 1995 of fourteen municipal appointments made by outgoing Mayor Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja in June 1995. The challenged appointees included registration, clerical, agricultural and general‑services personnel whose appointment dates ranged from June 1 to June 27, 1995; petitioner characterized them as "midnight appointments" and invoked Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution as the basis for recall.
While the recall request was pending, three appointees (Elsa Marino, Morell Ayala, Flordeliza Oriazel) filed salary claims with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), asserting they had assumed duties and were entitled to pay despite petitioner’s Office Order No. 95‑01 (June 30, 1995) recalling the fourteen appointments. The CSC Legal and Quasi‑Judicial Division ordered payment to those claimants, citing Rule V, Section 10 of the Omnibus Rules that an appointee who has assumed duties is entitled to salary pending Commission approval.
On April 30, 1996 the CSC denied petitioner’s recall request for lack of merit, ruling the constitutional prohibition petitioner invoked applies only to the President and Acting President and noting that the appointments had been attested by the Head of the CSC Field Office in Lucena City. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on November 21, 1996. Petitioner then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, which in a May 16, 1997 Resolution (ponente: Justice Hofilena) affirmed the CSC: it found no abuse of appointing power, rejected petitioner’s arguments about statutory posting and screening requirements (citing R.A. No. 7041, Sec. 80), and denied the petition; the CA likewise denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on October 20, 1997.
Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, assailing both CSC and CA rulings and arguing that (1) the CSC and CA wrongly disregarded evidentiary material in petitioner’s supplemental pleading that showed fraud and procedural violations, and (2) the app...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Civil Service Commission and the Court of Appeals correct in refusing to consider the allegations and documents first raised in petitioner’s supplemental pleading—that is, were those matters properly excluded as not constituting new evidence and thus barred from consideration on appeal?
- Were the fourteen municipal appointments valid and properly effective such that petitioner could not unilaterally recall or revoke them—specifically, does the constitutional prohibition on "midnight appointments" invoked by petitioner apply to local elective officials, and did the Omnibus Rules permit th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)