Title
Provincial Government of Aurora vs. Marco
Case
G.R. No. 202331
Decision Date
Apr 22, 2015
Hilario Marco's appointment as Cooperative Development Specialist II was upheld as valid despite fund certification withdrawal; reinstatement and back salaries ordered.

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1840)

Chronology of Facts Relevant to Dispute

Governor Ong appointed Marco permanently as Cooperative Development Specialist II on June 25, 2004. The appointment papers, submitted to CSC Field Office‑Aurora on June 28, 2004, were accompanied by a certification from Provincial Budget Officer Clemente and Provincial Accountant Saturno that funds under the Province’s 2004 Annual Budget were available. On June 30, 2004, Governor Angara‑Castillo assumed office; following an executive meeting, a written recall of the prior certification was transmitted. The Field Office disapproved Marco’s appointment by letter dated July 5, 2004, and Marco was advised not to report for work as of July 8, 2004.

Administrative Appeals and CSC Resolution

Marco sought reconsideration before the CSC Regional Office, which affirmed disapproval on April 6, 2005. Marco appealed to the CSC Proper; the Province failed to file its required comment within ten days under Section 73 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS). On April 14, 2008 CSC Proper reversed the Regional Office and Field Office, holding that the appointment was valid because it had been accompanied by an initial certification of funds; the subsequent withdrawal of that certification did not alter the validity in the absence of documentary proof that funds were indeed unavailable. CSC directed investigation of the budget officer and accountant for potentially improper certification. The Province received the April 14, 2008 resolution on May 21, 2008.

Procedural Failure to Seek Reconsideration and the Doctrine of Finality

The Province did not file a motion for reconsideration within the 15‑day reglementary period provided in Rule VI, Section 80 of the URACCS, so CSC’s April 14, 2008 resolution became final and executory on June 6, 2008. The Secretary‑level doctrine and related jurisprudence cited (Mendiola; Obiasca) establish that a final and executory administrative decision is immutable and may not be reversed by the issuing body once the reglementary period to seek reconsideration has lapsed, absent proper and timely procedural remedies. The Province’s attempt to invoke a “petition for relief” under Rule 38 of the Rules of Court failed in the CSC because that remedy is not provided under URACCS; moreover, the Province did not substantiate claims of extrinsic fraud or other bases to excuse its procedural default.

Execution and Rule on Appealability of Orders of Execution

When Marco moved for execution of the final CSC resolution, CSC Proper granted implementation. The Province erroneously sought relief by appealing the order of execution to the Court of Appeals; under the Rules of Court and settled authorities, orders of execution are not appealable and the proper remedy to challenge execution of a final administrative decision is a special civil action under Rule 65, not an ordinary appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the Court of Appeals should have dismissed the Province’s appeal on this ground.

Effectivity of Appointment, Implementation, and Back Salaries

Under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40‑98, Rule IV, Section 1 (and Rule VI, Section 3), an appointment takes effect upon issuance by the appointing authority and remains effective while a timely motion for reconsideration or appeal from an initial disapproval is pending; during that period the appointee is entitled to salary. Because Marco’s appointment was issued on June 25, 2004 and a timely motion/appeal was pursued, his appointment continued in effect. When CSC Proper ultimately set aside the disapproval, reinstatement and payment of back salaries and benefits were the necessary consequences of that grant of relief; CSC did not improperly vary the April 14, 2008 resolution but properly ordered its implementation and the attendant reinstatement and back pay.

Certification of Availability of Funds and Its Withdrawal

The appointment was accompanied by the required certification by the Provincial Budget Officer and Provincial Accountant that funds were available under the 2004 Annual Budget, satisfying Rule V, Section 1(e)(ii) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40‑98 and the budgetary coverage requirement of Section 325(e) of the Local Government Code. The subsequent withdrawal of the certification by the new administration, absent documentary proof that funds were actually unavailable at the time of appointment, did not retroactively void the appointment. The CSC appropriately required documentary proof to support the Province’s claim of lack of funds; in parallel, it directed administrative inquiry into whether the officials who issued and then withdrew the certification committed misrepresentation punishable under Section 67 of the Civil Service Law.

Midnight Appointments: Constitutional and Administrative Limits

The constitutional prohibition against “midnight appointments” (Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution) applies specifically to presidential appointments within the two‑month pre‑election period and up to the end of the President’s term. There is no identical constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments by local elective officials. Nonetheless, the CSC, pursuant to its constitutional and statutory mandate as the central personnel agency (Article IX‑B, Section 3 of the Constitution; administrative code provisions), has promulgated rules restricting appointments by outgoing local officials around elections to promote orderly transfer and prevent patronage.

CSC Resolutions No. 010988 and No. 030918: Differences and Application

CSC Resolution No. 010988 (2001) established guidelines including prohibitions on “mass appointments” after elections unless certain requisites were met. That resolution was later superseded by CSC Resolution No. 030918 (2003), effective August 28, 2003, which tightened restrictions and provided that appointments issued by elective appointing officials after elections up to June 30 shall be disapproved except where the appointee is fully qualified and had undergone regular screening before the election ban as shown by the PSB report or minutes. Because Resolution No. 030918 was in force when Governor Ong made the contested appointments, it is the applicable administrative standard.

Application of Resolution No. 030918 to Marco’s Appointment

Under Resolution No. 030918, Marco’s appointment was excepted from automatic disapproval because he was found to be fully qualified and had undergone regular screening by the Personnel Selection Board on February 12–13, 2004—well before the election ban. The CSC’s factual finding that Marco satisfied the exemption, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court under the limited standard that it will not disturb CSC findings absent grave abuse of discretion, supported the validity of his appointment. The Court also noted that even if Governor Ong’s 26 appointments were issued in bulk, Resolution No. 030918 does not per se prohibit appointments of a relatively modest number and, in any event, 26 was materially distinguishable from the 89 appointments invalidated in Nazareno.

Distinguishing Nazareno and De Rama

Nazareno (decided under Resolution No. 010988) involved mass appointments of a substantially l

...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