Case Digest (G.R. No. 202331)
Facts:
The Provincial Government of Aurora v. Hilario M. Marco, G.R. No. 202331, April 22, 2015, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.The petition arose from a dispute over the validity and implementation of the appointment of Hilario M. Marco as Cooperative Development Specialist II by outgoing Governor Ramoncita P. Ong. Governor Ong signed Marco’s permanent appointment on June 25, 2004, five days before the end of her term; the appointment papers included a certification by the Provincial Budget Officer and Provincial Accountant that funds under the Province’s 2004 Annual Budget were available to cover the position.
When newly elected Governor Bellaflor Angara-Castillo assumed office on June 30, 2004, a subsequent executive meeting produced a Letter from the Provincial Budget Officer withdrawing the earlier certification of funds. The Civil Service Commission Field Office–Aurora then disapproved Marco’s appointment in a July 5, 2004 letter; Marco was instructed not to report for work beginning July 8, 2004. Marco sought reconsideration before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office, which denied his appeal on April 6, 2005. He appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Proper.
On April 14, 2008 the CSC granted Marco’s appeal, set aside the disapproval, directed the Field Office to reflect the Resolution in Marco’s appointment papers and service record, and ordered investigation into the budget officers who certified and then withdrew the funding certification. The Province received a copy of that Resolution on May 21, 2008 but did not file a motion for reconsideration within the 15-day reglementary period.
The Province, through its Provincial Administrator, filed a Petition for Relief on July 22, 2008 alleging extrinsic fraud; the CSC denied it (November 4, 2008) for lack of authority to file and because a petition for relief is not available under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. A later motion for reconsideration with the Governor’s written authority was denied (September 8, 2009) on the ground that the April 14, 2008 Resolution had become final and executory. Marco then sought implementation; the CSC granted implementation (Resolution dated July 6, 2010) and later, after the Province’s further motions were denied (January 24, 2011), directed the Province to reinstate Marco and pay back salaries and benefits.
The Province filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 before the Court of Appeals complaining, among other things, for the first time that Marco was a “midnight appointee.” The Court of Appeals denied the petition (Decision dated March 2, 2012), finding the CSC Resolution final and executory, upholding the sufficiency of funds certification (including a supplemental budget), and ruling that Marco fell within the exceptions set in CSC Reso...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the CSC Resolution dated July 6, 2010 (ordering implementation of the April 14, 2008 Resolution) void for varying the terms of the April 14, 2008 Resolution?
- Did the subsequent withdrawal of the certification of availability of funds void Marco’s appointment?
- Was Marco’s appointment void as a prohibite...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)