Case Summary (G.R. No. 176707)
Chronology of Key Facts
May 26, 2003: Beloso appointed respondent to Administrative Officer II; respondent assumed duties June 19, 2003.
June 4, 2003: New superintendent Oyardo instructed re‑ranking and return of applicants’ papers to the school; only qualified applicants to be endorsed.
After June 19, 2003: Diaz informed respondent her appointment could not be forwarded to the CSC because respondent’s position description form (PDF) was not signed by Gonzales; Gonzales refused to sign despite repeated requests; Oyardo advised respondent to return to her prior Teacher I post.
August 25, 2003: Oyardo appointed petitioner to the same Administrative Officer II position; petitioner’s appointment was submitted to and attested by the CSC.
Administrative and Quasi‑Judicial Proceedings
Respondent filed complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman; Ombudsman found Oyardo and Gonzales administratively liable and suspended them for three months; Diaz was absolved.
Respondent filed a protest with CSC Regional Office V which was initially dismissed, reinstated on reconsideration, then dismissed for lack of merit; respondent elevated the matter to the CSC.
November 29, 2005: CSC resolved to grant respondent’s appeal, approved respondent’s appointment and recalled its prior approval of petitioner’s appointment. That CSC resolution became final and executory by virtue of applicable procedures. Petitioner sought judicial relief thereafter.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Supreme Court Petition
Court of Appeals (Sept. 26, 2006) denied petitioner’s certiorari petition, held respondent’s appointment effective upon issuance and assumption of duties, found respondent qualified, and ruled petitioner’s appointment void because no appointment may be made to a non‑vacant position. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied (Feb. 8, 2007). Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
Issues Presented
Whether respondent’s appointment became ineffective for failure of the appointing authority (or responsible officials) to submit the appointment to the CSC within thirty (30) days from issuance, as interpreted from PD 807 and the Omnibus Rules implementing Book V of Executive Order (EO) No. 292; and whether petitioner’s subsequent appointment to the same position was valid.
Applicable Legal Framework (1987 Administrative Code and Relevant Rules)
- Civil Service Law/P.D. No. 807, Section 9(h): historically required submission of appointments to the CSC and provided that an appointment “shall take effect immediately upon issue by the appointing authority if the appointee assumes his duties immediately and shall remain effective until it is disapproved by the [CSC].”
- Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), Section 12 (Book V): gives CSC power to “take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel matters” and to inspect and audit personnel actions; the majority finds that EO 292 amended PD 807 by deleting the rigid 30‑day submission/automatic ineffectiveness clause.
- Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292: contain provisions (e.g., Sec. 10, Sec. 11, Sec. 1, Rule IV, Sec. 9, Rule V and Sec. 11, Rule V) addressing effectivity of appointments, the role of CSC approval, and administrative remedies; Section 11 (Rule V) had provided that an appointment not submitted within 30 days shall be ineffective.
- Procedural rules: CSC Omnibus Rules on remedies (Sections 16 and 18, Rule VI) and Rule 43 of the Rules of Court (petition for review from quasi‑judicial agencies).
- Civil Code Article 1186: invoked by majority as a principle that the condition is deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment.
Majority’s Legal Reasoning on the 30‑Day Submission Rule
The majority holds that the legal requirement must be read in context: an appointment issued in accordance with law takes effect upon issuance if the appointee assumes duties and remains effective until disapproved by the CSC. The critical change is that EO 292 (Section 12, Book V) deleted the 30‑day deadline and the automatic punitive effect of ineffectiveness that PD 807 previously imposed. Because EO 292 confers broad powers on the CSC to take action and to audit personnel actions, but omitted the 30‑day prescriptive/penal clause, the majority finds the strict 30‑day automatic ineffectiveness no longer operative. To restore that requirement by judicial interpretation would amount to rewriting the law.
Majority’s Application of Law to Facts and Equitable Considerations
- Finality of CSC action: CSC’s November 29, 2005 resolution approving respondent’s appointment and recalling petitioner’s appointment became final and executory; petitioner failed to file timely petition for reconsideration before pursuing the CA, rendering the CSC resolution immutable.
- Bad faith and prevention of submission: respondent’s failure to have her papers forwarded to CSC was not her fault but resulted from willful refusal by local officials (Gonzales and Oyardo) and Diaz’s unjustified refusal to sign the PDF; Ombudsman and CSC sanctions corroborated the misconduct. Under Article 1186 the condition (timely submission) is deemed fulfilled where the officials responsible voluntarily prevented its fulfillment.
- Equity and protection of the innocent appointee: penalizing respondent for others’ bad faith would reward scheming officials and permit appointing authorities to indirectly effect revocation by blocking CSC submission. Because respondent assumed duties, was qualified, and CSC later approved her appointment (recalling petitioner’s), the majority concluded that respondent’s appointment was valid and petitioner’s subsequent appointment void.
Precedents Considered and Distinctions
The majority discussed Favis v. Rupisan and Tomali v. CSC, noting that those cases involved different factual matrices (notably absence of bad faith or diligence by the appointee) and should not be mechanically extended. It relied on jurisprudence (e.g., Civil Service Commission v. Joson; Chavez v. Ronidel; De Rama v. Court of Appeals) to support equitable
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 176707)
Case Caption, Citation and Bench
- Reported at 626 Phil. 775, En Banc, G.R. No. 176707, February 17, 2010.
- Parties: Arlin B. Obiasca (petitioner) vs. Jeane O. Basallote (respondent).
- Decision authored by Justice Renato C. Corona (majority); concurrence by Puno, C.J., Carpio, Carpio Morales, Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez and Villarama, Jr., JJ.; Velasco, Jr. and Peralta, JJ., join the dissent of Justice Bersamin; Justice Del Castillo did not take part.
- Dissent authored by Justice Bersamin (joined by Justices Velasco, Jr. and Peralta).
Facts
- On May 26, 2003, City Schools Division Superintendent Nelly B. Beloso appointed Jeane O. Basallote to Administrative Officer II, Item No. OSEC-DECSB-ADO2-390030-1998, at DepEd Tabaco National High School, Albay.
- On June 4, 2003, incoming City Schools Division Superintendent Ma. Amy O. Oyardo advised School Principal Leticia B. Gonzales that applicant papers (including respondent’s) were being returned and that a school ranking should be accomplished and only qualified applicants endorsed.
- Respondent assumed the office of Administrative Officer II on June 19, 2003.
- Ma. Teresa U. Diaz (Human Resource Management Officer I) informed respondent her appointment could not be forwarded to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) because respondent’s position description form (PDF) lacked Gonzales’ signature; Gonzales refused to sign despite repeated requests.
- When respondent informed Oyardo, she was advised to return to her former Teacher I position; respondent followed that advice.
- On August 25, 2003, Oyardo appointed petitioner Arlin B. Obiasca to the same Administrative Officer II position; petitioner’s appointment was sent to and duly attested by the CSC.
Administrative and Quasi-judicial Proceedings
- Respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon against Oyardo, Gonzales and Diaz.
- Ombudsman decision (July 19, 2004, Case No. OMB-L-A-03-0875-H): found Oyardo and Gonzales administratively liable for withholding information and suspended them for three months; Diaz was absolved in that decision summary (the majority later notes CSC sanctioned Diaz).
- Respondent filed a protest with CSC Regional Office V; initially dismissed for referral to DepEd Grievance Committee.
- Motion for reconsideration reinstated the protest; ultimately dismissed for lack of merit.
- Appeal to CSC Regional Office dismissed for failure to show her appointment had been received and attested by the CSC.
- Respondent elevated the matter to the CSC.
- CSC resolution dated November 29, 2005: granted respondent’s appeal, approved respondent’s appointment and recalled approval of petitioner’s appointment.
Court of Appeals Proceedings
- Petitioner filed certiorari in the Court of Appeals (CA) challenging the CSC’s recalling of his appointment and sought injunctive relief.
- CA Decision dated September 26, 2006 (Second Division): denied petitioner’s petition; upheld respondent’s appointment as effective immediately upon issuance (May 26, 2003) because respondent assumed duties and responsibilities; held respondent possessed qualifications and that petitioner’s appointment was void because no appointment could be made to the position while respondent’s valid appointment stood.
- CA found Diaz unreasonably refused to sign the PDF and that the PDF was not required to be submitted to the CSC.
- Petition for reconsideration to the CA denied February 8, 2007.
Petition and Relief Sought in the Supreme Court
- Petitioner invoked Rule 45 (petition for review) asserting CSC acted without factual and legal basis in recalling his appointment; argued respondent’s appointment was ineffective because never attested by CSC and not submitted within 30 days as required by the Omnibus Rules implementing Book V of EO No. 292 (thus appointment became ineffective).
- Petitioner contended respondent’s appointment dated May 23/26, 2003 should have been transmitted to CSC by June 22, 2003 and that failure rendered the position vacant when petitioner was appointed.
Respondent’s Position
- Respondent conceded non-submission but argued the reason given (absence of a PDF signed by Gonzales) was unjustified and the PDF was not a required document for CSC attestation.
- Respondent asserted she promptly and diligently followed up her appointment papers and that the failure to submit was due to the willful acts of third-party officials (Gonzales, Oyardo, Diaz).
Legal Provisions Quoted and Central Statutory Texts
- Section 9(h), PD 807 (Civil Service Law) as quoted:
- Approve all appointments; “An appointment shall take effect immediately upon issue by the appointing authority if the appointee assumes his duties immediately and shall remain effective until it is disapproved by the [CSC]... All appointments requiring the approval of the [CSC]... shall be submitted to it by the appointing authority within thirty days from issuance, otherwise the appointment becomes ineffective thirty days thereafter.”
- Section 11, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of EO 292 quoted: “An appointment not submitted to the [CSC] within thirty (30) days... shall be ineffective.”
- Section 1, Rule IV of the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions quoted: appointment issued in accordance with laws takes effect immediately upon issuance and appointee is entitled to salary if assumed duties; appointment remains effective until disapproved by the Commission.
- Section 12, Book V of EO 292 quoted (relevant subsections 14 and 15): grants the CSC powers to “Take appropriate action on all appointments and other personnel matters in the Civil Service” and to inspect/audit personnel actions and apply sanctions.
- Section 10 of the Omnibus Rules quoted, echoing that appointment takes effect immediately and remains effective until disapproved by CSC.
- Section 9, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules quoted: “An appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and shall remain in force and effect until disapproved by the [CSC].”
- Article 1186, Civil Code referenced: “The condition shall be deemed fulfilled when the obligor voluntarily prevents its fulfillment.” (applied analogously in the majority’s reasoning).
Procedural-Remedy Rules and Finality Doctrines Cited
- Sections 16 and 18, Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules: provide remedies to assail CSC decisions; Section 16 requires appeal to CSC within 15 days and makes CSC decision final and executory if no petition for reconsideration filed within 15 days; Section 18 deems failure to file protest/appeal/petition within prescribed periods a waiver.
- Rule 43, Rules of Court referenced as the procedure to file a petition for review from quasi-judicial agencies; interplay with Omnibus Rules’ requirements discussed.
- Doctrine of immutability/finality of judgments emphasized: CSC resolution dated November 29, 2005 became final and executory due to petitioner’s failure to file petition for reconsideration, thus immutable.
Majority’s Core Legal Issues Presented
- Whether deliberate failure of appointing authority or responsible officials to submit respondent’s appointment to CSC within 30 days rendered respondent’s appointment ineffective and incomplete.
- Whether Section 9(h) of PD 807 still mandates 30-day submission and punitive consequence (ineffectiveness) despite EO 292 and implementing Omnibus Rules.
- Whether petitioner’s failure to avail of administrative remedies rendered the CSC resolution final and enforceable.
- Whether equitable considerations and the conduct of appointing officials justify upholding respondent’s appointment despite non-compliance with reportorial/attestation formalities.
Majority’s Analysis and Reasoning (Justice Corona)
- Procedural finality:
- CSC resolution of November 29, 2005 that approved respondent’s appointment and recalled petitioner’s had become final and executory because p