Title
De Rama vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 131136
Decision Date
Feb 28, 2001
Outgoing mayor's municipal appointments upheld as valid; no constitutional violation or procedural irregularities found; petitioner's recall request denied.
appointments
outgoing mayor
violation of laws

Case Summary (G.R. No. 131136)

Factual Background

Upon assuming office as Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner Conrado L. de Rama sought the recall of fourteen appointments made by outgoing Mayor Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja. The appointments bore dates between June 1 and June 27, 1995 and covered various municipal positions. Petitioner predicated the recall on the allegation that these were so-called “midnight” appointments forbidden by Art. VII, Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution, which he understood to bar last‑minute appointive acts. While the recall proceedings were pending, three appointees — Elsa Marino, Morell Ayala, and Flordeliza Oriazel — claimed entitlement to salaries and benefits, alleging that they had been paid as permanent appointees by the Civil Service Field Office but that petitioner withheld their compensation after issuing Office Order No. 95-01.

Proceedings before the Civil Service Commission

The Legal and Quasi‑Judicial Division of the Civil Service Commission ordered that the three claimants who had assumed their duties were entitled to salaries under Rule V, Section 10 of the Omnibus Rules. On April 30, 1996 the Commission denied petitioner’s request to recall all fourteen appointments for lack of merit. The CSC held that Sections 9 and 10 of Rule V render an appointment effective upon issuance and that an appointment accepted and assumed by the appointee cannot be withdrawn by the appointing authority but remains in force until disapproved by the Commission. The CSC also ruled that the constitutional prohibition on “midnight appointments” applied to the President or Acting President only and not to local elective officials. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the CSC was denied on November 21, 1996, the CSC reiterating that no evidence proved the appointments were defective in form or substance.

Proceedings in the Court of Appeals

Petitioner filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, by Resolution dated May 16, 1997, affirmed the CSC’s rulings. The appellate court found no abuse of appointment power by the outgoing mayor. It rejected petitioner’s contention that appointments made several months after publication of vacancies violated Republic Act No. 7041, citing Section 80 thereof and noting that RA 7041 does not mandate that every appointment be made within four months of vacancy publication. The Court of Appeals also observed that CSC Circular Order No. 27, Section 7, Series of 1991 did not require that vacancies published in a quarterly be filled before the succeeding quarter. The court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on October 20, 1997.

Issues Presented

The principal legal questions presented were whether the CSC and the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to recall the appointments; whether the constitutional prohibition contained in Art. VII, Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution on appointments near the end of term applies to local elective officials; whether an appointing authority may unilaterally revoke appointments after the appointee has assumed office; and whether allegations of fraud and noncompliance with civil service rules, raised for the first time in a supplemental pleading, could be entertained on review.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner argued that the appointments were invalid “midnight appointments” made by an outgoing mayor and thus subject to recall. He further contended that the CSC lacked jurisdiction to refuse recall and that the appointments were tainted by fraud and procedural irregularities by the Personnel Selection Board, including absence of proper posting, lack of screening criteria, and failure to observe merit and fitness requirements. The CSC, the Court of Appeals, and the private respondents countered that the constitutional bar cited by petitioner applies only to presidential appointments; that the appointments were attested by the Head of the CSC Field Office in Lucena City and thus took effect upon issuance and assumption; that Rule V, Sections 9 and 10 protect appointees’ legal rights once they have assumed office; and that petitioner failed to timely raise or prove the alleged irregularities, rendering the supplemental pleading insufficient.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court denied the petition for review and affirmed in toto the Court of Appeals’ resolution affirming CSC Resolutions Nos. 96-2828 and 96-7527. The Court held that petitioner’s initial ground for recall — that the appointments were constitutionally forbidden “midnight appointments” — was inapplicable because Art. VII, Sec. 15, 1987 Constitution restrains only the President or Acting President. The Court further held that once an appointment is issued in accordance with law and the appointee assumed the duties of the position, the appointee acquires a legal right protected by statute and by the Constitution, and that right cannot be taken away by unilateral revocation except for cause and with prior notice and hearing. The Court concluded that the CSC and the Court of Appeals did not err in refusing to consider petitioner’s supplemental allegations because they were not new events subject to a supplemental pleading under Rule 10, Section 6, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, and because issues of fact cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court emphasized that Rule V, Section 10 of the Omnibus Rules provides that an appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules takes effect immediately upon issuance and that an appointee who has assumed duties is entitled to salary without awaiting CSC approval. The Court cited Rule V, Section 9 to the effect that an appointment accepted by the appointee remains in force until disapproved by the Commission, and Section 20 of Rule VI enumerating the grounds on which an initial approval may be recalled. The Court reiterated the doctrine, as stated in Aquino v. Civil Service Commission and other precedents, that upon issuance and assumption an appointee acquires a legal right that is not lightly divested. The Court found that petitioner offered only the constitutional “midnight appointment” argument at the outset and did not timely present evidence of fraud or procedural violations; therefore the CSC acted within discretion in declining to admit or rely upon the supplemental pleading under Rule 10, Sec. 6, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court also invoked the limitation of its jurisdiction under Rule 45, Revised Rules of Court to errors of law, noting that the factual findings of the CSC and the Court of Appeals were supported by the record.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice Mendoza filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Davide, Jr., and Justices Melo, Panganiban, Gonzaga‑Reyes, and De Leon, Jr. Justice Mendoza argued

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms