G.R. No. 176707 - Obiasca vs. Basallote

On May 26, 2003, Nelly B. Beloso, City Schools Division Superintendent, appointed Jeane O. Basallote (respondent) as Administrative Officer II at the Department of Education (DepEd), Tabaco National High School in Albay.
On June 4, 2003, Ma. Amy O. Oyardo, the new City Schools Division Superintendent, advised the School Principal Dr. Leticia B. Gonzales that applicants’ papers, including respondent’s, for the position be returned for school ranking and that only qualified applicants be endorsed.
The respondent assumed office on June 19, 2003.

Ma. Teresa U. Diaz, Human Resource Management Officer, informed respondent that her appointment could not be forwarded to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) due to failure to submit a position description form (PDF) signed by Gonzales.
Gonzales refused to sign the PDF despite repeated requests by respondent.
Oyardo advised respondent to return to her previous position as Teacher I, which she did.

On August 25, 2003, Oyardo appointed Arlin B. Obiasca (petitioner) to the same position and his appointment was properly attested by the CSC.
Respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against Oyardo, Gonzales, and Diaz; Oyardo and Gonzales were found administratively liable and suspended for withholding information about respondent’s appointment. Diaz was absolved.
Respondent filed a protest with CSC Regional Office V which was initially dismissed for procedural grounds, later reinstated, but still dismissed for lack of merit.
Respondent appealed to the CSC which granted her appeal on November 29, 2005, approving respondent’s appointment and recalling petitioner’s.

Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the CSC lacked factual and legal basis to recall his appointment.
The CA denied the petition on September 26, 2006, ruling respondent’s appointment was effective upon issuance as she assumed duties immediately; petitioner’s appointment was void.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration by the CA was denied.
Petitioner filed the present petition before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner contends respondent's appointment was invalid as it was never attested by the CSC within 30 days, rendering it ineffective.
Respondent argues the non-submission was not her fault but due to wrongful refusal by officials to process her papers, noting the PDF was not a required document for submission to CSC.

Whether respondent’s appointment was valid and effective despite the lack of timely submission and attestation by the CSC within 30 days from issuance.
Whether the failure to submit respondent’s appointment papers timely to the CSC due to willful acts of appointing officials could render the appointment ineffective, thus justifying the appointment of petitioner.
Whether the Doctrine of immutability of final judgments bars the Court from disturbing the CSC’s final resolution approving respondent’s appointment and recalling petitioner’s appointment.
Whether petitioner’s appointment was valid and free from legal infirmities considering the status of respondent’s appointment.
Proper interpretation and application of Section 9(h) of PD 807 and its amendment under EO 292 and the Omnibus Rules of the CSC regarding submission and effectivity of appointments.