Case Digest (G.R. No. 110598) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Mona A. Tomali v. Civil Service Commission, Office on Muslim Affairs (OMA) and Rocaina M. Lucman (G.R. No. 110598, December 1, 1994), petitioner Mona A. Tomali was appointed Development Management Officer II (DMO II) of the OMA on July 1, 1990, by then‐Executive Director Dimasangcay A. Pundato. Her appointment was not transmitted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) within the required 30-day period and thus remained incomplete. Petitioner only assumed the position on November 1, 1990, four months after issuance of her appointment. On July 16, 1991, the newly installed OMA Director, Dr. Ali Basir Lucman, revoked Tomali’s incomplete appointment and designated private respondent Rocaina M. Lucman as DMO II. Petitioner protested on July 29 and August 12, 1991, but the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissed her complaint on July 23, 1992, for lack of merit, holding that an unapproved appointment is ineffective by operation of law (Section 11, Rule V, Omnibus Rules Imple Case Digest (G.R. No. 110598) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Petitioner's Appointment and Assumption
- On 01 July 1990, Mona A. Tomali was appointed Development Management Officer II (DMO II) by OMA Executive Director Dimasangcay A. Pundato. The appointment was not transmitted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) within 30 days.
- On 01 November 1990, four months after issuance, petitioner assumed the duties of DMO II without CSC approval.
- Prior Civil Service Employment
- Records Clerk, Mindanao State University (01 June 1983–31 December 1986)
- Clerk Typist (02 January 1987–30 June 1989) and Budget Assistant (01 July 1989–31 October 1990)
- Replacement and Administrative Proceedings
- On 16 July 1991, new OMA Director Dr. Ali Basir Lucman revoked petitioner’s incomplete appointment and appointed Rocaina M. Lucman as DMO II. Petitioner protested on 29 July and again on 12 August 1991; on 01 August 1991, OMA notified petitioner of disapproval/expiration of her appointment.
- Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissed petitioner’s protest on 23 July 1992 for lack of merit, citing Section 11, Rule V, Omnibus Rules (appointment ineffective if not submitted to CSC within 30 days). Request for reconsideration denied on 27 November 1992. CSC Resolution No. 93-945 (12 March 1993) dismissed petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner filed special civil action for certiorari before the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Whether an appointment not submitted to the CSC within thirty days is effective and grants security of tenure.
- Whether petitioner’s failure to secure CSC approval barred her from invoking security of tenure.
- Whether the new OMA Director abused his discretion in recalling petitioner’s appointment and appointing another.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)