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

Case Summary (G.R. No. 176707)

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

The decision relies on the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the fundamental law governing civil service appointments, particularly the constitutional mandate that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) administer the civil service (Article IX-B, Section 3). The pertinent laws include Presidential Decree (PD) No. 807 (Civil Service Code), Executive Order (EO) No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), and the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO No. 292, especially the provisions on appointment procedures and CSC’s powers to approve or disapprove appointments.

Background and Appointment Chronology

Respondent Basallote was appointed by City Schools Division Superintendent Nelly B. Beloso on May 26, 2003, as Administrative Officer II. However, subsequent administrative actions by the new superintendent Ma. Amy O. Oyardo involved reassessment of applicants, returning Basallote’s papers, and later advising her to return to her prior teaching post citing non-submission of a duly signed Position Description Form (PDF). Basallote assumed office on June 19, 2003 but her appointment was not forwarded to the CSC due to the alleged unsigned PDF. Meanwhile, Oyardo appointed the petitioner Obiasca to the same position and his appointment was duly attested by the CSC.

Administrative and CSC Proceedings

Basallote filed administrative complaints resulting in the Ombudsman finding some respondents administratively liable for withholding information, though one official was absolved. Basallote filed a protest with the CSC which was initially dismissed but eventually elevated to the CSC which, in a November 29, 2005 resolution, approved Basallote’s appointment and recalled that of Obiasca. Obiasca challenged this before the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the CSC ruling.

Legal Issue: Effectivity and Submission of Appointment to the CSC

Petitioner contended that respondent’s appointment was invalid and ineffective because it was never attested by the CSC within 30 days as required under Section 9(h) of PD 807 and Section 11, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules. He asserted that non-submission within the prescribed period renders an appointment ineffective, thus the position was vacant when he was appointed.

Respondent argued that her appointment was unilaterally withheld from submission to the CSC due to improper and unjustified administrative actions, including the refusal of a requisite signature which, under the law, was not even necessary for submission and attestation.

Court’s Analysis on Submission Period and Effectivity of Appointment

The Court held that under the 1987 Constitution and relevant laws, the submission of appointments within 30 days to the CSC was a requirement under PD 807, but this was effectively amended and its strict 30-day submission rule was removed by EO 292. Section 12 of Book V of EO 292 confers upon the CSC the power to take appropriate action on all appointments but does not impose a strict 30-day submission deadline with automatic ineffectivity.

The Court emphasized that an appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance and assumption of duties by the appointee and remains effective until disapproved by the CSC. The 30-day rule under Section 11 of the Omnibus Rules was held to lack legal basis as it reinstates a provision discarded by EO 292.

Effect of Willful Non-Submission by Officials

The Court recognized that respondent’s appointment was never submitted to the CSC not due to respondent’s fault but because of the deliberate and wrongful acts of officials who withheld and delayed the processing to favor another applicant. Such malfeasance was administratively sanctioned by the Ombudsman and CSC.

Given these deliberate acts to impede respondent’s appointment, the Court ruled that the non-submission should not penalize the respondent. Under Article 1186 of the Civil Code, conditions are deemed fulfilled when the obligor prevents their fulfillment; thus, deliberate interference by officials is equivalent to fulfillment of submission requirements.

Finality of CSC Resolution and Doctrine of Immutability of Judgments

The CSC’s approval of respondent’s appointment and recall of petitioner’s appointment became final and executory due to petitioner’s failure to file a petition for reconsideration within the prescribed period. The Court affirmed the immutability and finality of this resolution and upheld the CA’s decision confirming it.

Rejection of Petitioner’s Arguments and Precedent

The Court rejected petitioner’s reliance on prior cases like Favis v. Rupisan and Tomali v. CSC, distinguishing the facts where appointments became invalid due to the appointee’s own negligence or the absence of bad faith by appointing authorities. Here, deliberate administrative machinations prevented timely submission.

The Court also elucidated that the CSC has exclusive authority to recall or disapprove appointments, not the appointing authority. Hence, petitioner’s appointment to the already filled position was void ab initio.

Summary of Holdings

An appointment in the civil service becomes effective immediately upon issuance and assumption of duties by the appointee and remains effective until CSC disapproval.
The 30-day requirement for submission of appointments to the CSC under PD 807 was effectively removed by EO 292.
An appointee should not be prejudiced by wrongful and deliberate administrative acts preventing submission of appointment papers.
The CSC’s approval of respondent’s appointment and recall of petitioner’s appointment are final and binding.
The subsequent appointment of petitioner to the position h

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 176707)

Facts of the Case

On May 26, 2003, Jeane O. Basallote was appointed Administrative Officer II by City Schools Division Superintendent Nelly B. Beloso at the Department of Education (DepEd), Tabaco National High School, Albay.
On June 4, 2003, new Superintendent Ma. Amy O. Oyardo ordered the return of applicant papers and requested a school ranking be submitted, advising only qualified applicants should be endorsed.
Basallote assumed office on June 19, 2003.
Basallote was later informed by Human Resource Officer Ma. Teresa U. Diaz that her appointment could not be forwarded to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) due to her failure to submit a position description form (PDF) signed by School Principal Dr. Leticia B. Gonzales.
Basallote's repeated requests for Gonzales’s signature were refused; Oyardo advised Basallote to revert to Teacher I position, which she complied with.
On August 25, 2003, Oyardo appointed petitioner Arlin B. Obiasca to the same position; Obiasca's appointment was properly sent to and attested by the CSC.
Basallote filed complaints with the Deputy Ombudsman and the CSC; Ombudsman found fraud and withheld information by Oyardo and Gonzales and suspended them, Diaz was absolved.
Basallote’s protest with CSC Regional Office was dismissed and subsequently elevated to CSC, which approved her appointment and recalled Obiasca’s appointment on November 29, 2005.
Obiasca petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld Basallote's appointment on September 26, 2006, ruling her appointment effective from May 26, 2003, due to her assumption of duties.
Obiasca filed a motion for reconsideration in the CA, which was denied February 8, 2007.
Obiasca petitioned the Supreme Court.

Issues Presented

Whether Basallote’s appointment was valid despite non-submission to the CSC within 30 days.
Whether the failure to submit the appointment to CSC rendered Basallote’s appointment ineffective and allowed Obiasca’s appointment to supplant hers.
Whether the non-submission requirement under Section 9(h) of PD 807 remains mandatory given amendment by Executive Order (EO) 292.
Whether the appointing authority can revoke a previously accepted appointment by appointing another without CSC approval.
Whether the failure of responsible officials to submit appointment papers prejudice a diligent appointee.
Proper procedural remedies to challenge CSC decisions.

Held

The petition is DENIED; Basallote’s appointment is valid and the earlier CSC resolution approving it and recalling Obiasca’s appointment is final and executory.
An appointment, once accepted by the appointee through immediate assumption of duties, takes effect immediately and remains so until disapproved by the CSC.
The 30-day submission period under Section 9(h) of PD 807 was effectively amended and removed by Section 12 of EO 292 and cannot be used rigidly to invalidate Basallote’s appointment.
Failure to submit appointment papers due to bad faith or willful acts of appointing officials does not prejudice the appointee who diligently pursues her appointment.
The appointing authority cannot revoke an appointment accepted by an appointee or supersede CSC’s power by appointing another to the same position without proper CSC disapproval.
Finality and immutability of CSC’s decision barring petition for reconsideration applies; such final resolutions are binding and not subject to collateral attack in courts.
Equity requires that procedural lapses caused by malice or neglect of officials must not unjustly penalize a qualified and diligent appointee.
Obiasca’s appointment was void because Basallote’s valid appointment had not been vacated.

Legal Principles and Rationale

Immediate Effectivity of Appointment: Appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance by appointing authority if the appointee assumes the duties; remains effective until CSC disapproves (Section 9(h) PD 807, Section 1 Rule IV Omnibus Rules).
Amendment of 30-day Submission Rule: EO 292 amended PD 807 by deleting the 30-day submission and its punitive effect; continuous CSC monitoring and approval remains but without rigid timeline to invalidate appointment.
Submission to CSC and Appointee’s Diligence: The obligation to submit appointment papers lies with appointing officials, not the appointee; non-submission d