G.R. No. 140335 - Gaminde vs. Commission on Audit

Case Summary (G.R. No. 140335)

The Case and Core Issue

This special civil action for certiorari contests the COA’s rulings that petitioner’s term as CSC Commissioner expired on February 2, 1999, as indicated in her appointment paper, thus disallowing salary payments beyond that date. The petitioner contended that her term expired on February 2, 2000, relying on a subsequent legal opinion from the Office of the President. The issue centers on the proper computation of her fixed term under the 1987 Constitution's staggered appointment scheme for CSC Commissioners.

Appointment and Confirmation Facts

Petitioner Thelma P. Gaminde was appointed by the President ad interim on June 11, 1993, confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on September 7, 1993. Her appointment paper explicitly stated an expiration date of February 2, 1999. A later request for term clarification prompted an advisory opinion dated April 7, 1998, from the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel which erroneously extended her term to February 2, 2000. Based on this advisory, the petitioner continued to receive salary beyond February 2, 1999, leading to COA’s disallowance of payments and subsequent administrative rulings.

Constitutional Provisions on Terms and Staggering

Under Article IX-B, Section 1(2) of the 1987 Constitution, the Chairman and Commissioners of the CSC are appointed for seven-year terms without reappointment, with the first appointees holding staggered terms of seven, five, and three years respectively. Appointments to vacancies are only for the unexpired term of the predecessor, and no temporary or acting memberships are allowed. The framers intended this staggering to ensure continuity, independence, and prevent dominance by a single appointing authority.

Historical and Legal Background on Term Computation

The rotational scheme for constitutional commissions traces back to the 1935 Constitution (e.g., Commission on Elections) and was continued in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions. Jurisprudence requires: (1) that terms of the first appointees commence simultaneously, and (2) vacancies must be filled only for unexpired terms to preserve the staggered cycle.

The Court’s Rationale on the Common Starting Date of Terms

The Court held that the proper starting date for the terms of the first appointees under the 1987 Constitution was the ratification date, February 2, 1987. Despite variances in appointment and assumption dates, this common date ensures the regular recurrence of term expirations every two years. The transitory provision of Article XVIII, Section 15 allows incumbents to hold over for one year after ratification, but does not alter the constitutionally fixed commencement of the first set of terms.

Application to Petitioner’s Case and Term Calculation

Applying the above principle, petitioner’s appointment on June 11, 1993, to a five-year term aligned to the second line of commissioners (five-year term commencing from February 2, 1987), resulted in a fixed term expiring on February 2, 1999. The subsequent office advisory extending her term to February 2, 2000 was legally incorrect. As such, the COA correctly ruled that petitioner’s appointment lapsed on February 2, 1999, despite her continued service.

Distinction Between Term and Tenure

The Court emphasized the legal distinction between "term" (fixed period of office entitlement) and "tenure" (actual period of holding office). The term fixed by the Constitution cannot be lengthened by acquiescence or administrative error. Petitioner’s continued service after February 2, 1999, was deemed de facto in good faith.

De Facto Officer Doctrine and Salary Disallowance

Though petitioner’s term had expired, she served in good faith until February 2, 2000. In equity and fairness, she and her co-terminous staff were entitled to receive salaries and emoluments for their actual service during this de facto period. Consequently, the Court reversed the COA decisions on salary disallowance for that period.

Line of Succession and Terms for the CSC Commissioners

The Court elaborated on the staggered terms:

Chairman: 7 years (Feb 2, 1987 – Feb 2, 1994; next Feb 2, 1994 – Feb 2, 2001)
First Commissioner: 5 years (Feb 2, 1987 – Feb 2, 1992; next Feb 2, 1992 – Feb 2, 1999)
Second Commissioner: 3 years (Feb 2, 1987 – Feb 2, 1990; next Feb 2, 1990 – Feb 2, 1997)

Petitioner belonged to the second line (five-year term) and therefore her appointment, confirmed by the Commission on Appointments, correctly ended on February 2, 1999.

The Dissenting Opinion

Justice De Leon, Jr. dissented on the proper computation of the starting date, advocating for the term to commence one year later on February 2, 1988, after the holdover period mandated by the Constitution. He argued this interpretation aligns with the transitory provisions ensuring incu

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 140335)

Background and Nature of the Case

The case is a special civil action of certiorari seeking to annul and set aside two decisions of the Commission on Audit (COA) concerning the term of office of petitioner Thelma P. Gaminde as Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission (CSC).
Petitioner was appointed ad interim Commissioner of CSC on June 11, 1993, and assumed office on June 22, 1993.
The Commission on Appointments confirmed her appointment on September 7, 1993.
Her appointment paper explicitly stated her term expired February 2, 1999.
Petitioner later sought clarification on the expiry of her term; the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel opined it expired February 2, 2000.
COA, however, issued an opinion that the term expired February 2, 1999, and subsequently disallowed her salaries and emoluments beginning on that date.
The COA en banc dismissed petitioner’s appeal and denied her motion for reconsideration.
Petitioner subsequently filed this petition for certiorari.

The Core Legal Issue

The pivotal issue: Did Thelma P. Gaminde’s term as CSC Commissioner expire on February 2, 1999, as stated in her appointment paper and held by COA, or did it expire on February 2, 2000, as claimed by petitioner based on the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel's advisory?

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions Relevant to Term of Office

1987 Constitution, Article IX, Section 1(2), prescribes appointment and fixed seven-year terms for Chairman and Commissioners of CSC without reappointment.
Among first appointees: Chairman holds 7 years, one Commissioner 5 years, another Commissioner 3 years, establishing a staggered or rotational system.
The first terms must start on a common date, and vacancies filled only for unexpired terms.
Previous constitutions (1973, 1935 amendments) similarly provided for staggered terms in constitutional commissions intended to ensure independence and continuity.
Article XVIII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution (Transitory Provisions) allows incumbent commissioners to remain in office for one year after ratification (February 2, 1987), unless removed or reappointed.
No member may be appointed in a temporary or acting capacity.

Facts as Established in the Case

At ratification of 1987 Constitution, incumbent CSC commissioners remained in office for one year.
The first set of CSC Commissioners appointed under the 1987 Constitution assumed office at various dates after February 2, 1987.
The staggered terms create intervals with expiration dates fixed every two years, ensuring periodic vacancies.
Petitioner was appointed on June 11, 1993, as Commissioner to a five-year term expiring February 2, 1999, replacing Commissioner Samilo N. Barlongay.
The Chief Presidential Legal Counsel issued a clarificatory ruling stating that petitioner’s term expired on February 2, 2000, a year later than stated in her appointment.
COA, based on the original appointment paper and constitutional intent, held that petitioner’s term expired February 2, 1999.
COA disallowed salary payments after that date, triggering this dispute.

Legal Principles on Term and Tenure

A distinction exists between “term” (t