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.
dispute
local chief executive
appointment

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17684-85)

Factual Background

The Provincial Governor Ramoncita P. Ong permanently appointed Hilario M. Marco as Cooperative Development Specialist II on June 25, 2004, five days before the end of her term, and the appointment papers were delivered to the Civil Service Commission Field Office‑Aurora on June 28, 2004 together with a certification by Provincial Budget Officer Norma R. Clemente and Provincial Accountant Wilfredo C. Saturno that funds under the Province’s 2004 Annual Budget were available to cover the position.

Events Following the Succession

Upon the assumption of office by Governor Bellaflor Angara‑Castillo on June 30, 2004, Provincial Budget Officer Clemente informed an executive meeting of department heads that funds were not available to pay the salaries of the 26 appointees issued by Governor Ong, and she issued a letter withdrawing the earlier certification; the Field Office then disapproved Marco’s appointment by letter dated July 5, 2004, Marco was served a copy and was advised to refrain from reporting for work beginning July 8, 2004.

Administrative Appeals and Commission Rulings

Marco sought reconsideration before the Civil Service Commission Regional Office, which denied his petition in a Decision dated April 6, 2005; Marco appealed to the Civil Service Commission Proper, which, in Resolution No. 080656 dated April 14, 2008, granted his appeal, set aside the disapproval because his appointment was accompanied by a certification of availability of funds, found the subsequent withdrawal unsupported by documentary evidence, ordered investigation of the officials who certified and withdrew the certification, and directed the Field Office to reflect the Commission’s ruling in Marco’s appointment papers and service record.

Subsequent Administrative Motions and Implementation

The Provincial Administrator Alex N. Ocampo filed a Petition for Relief before the Civil Service Commission on July 22, 2008 alleging extrinsic fraud and lack of notice, which the Commission denied November 4, 2008 for lack of legal personality and because the petition for relief is not provided under the Uniform Rules; a motion for reconsideration with the Governor’s written authority was denied September 8, 2009 because the April 14, 2008 resolution had become final and executory after no timely motion for reconsideration was filed; Marco thereafter sought implementation and the Commission, by Resolution No. 101361 dated July 6, 2010, granted implementation and ordered reinstatement with back pay; a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion to Quash execution was denied January 24, 2011 in Resolution No. 1100127, which expressly directed the Provincial Governor to reinstate Marco and pay his back salaries and benefits.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

The Provincial Government of Aurora filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals raising for the first time the contention that Marco was a “midnight appointee” and thus his appointment was void; the Court of Appeals denied the petition in its Decision dated March 2, 2012, holding that the April 14, 2008 Commission resolution had become final and executory, that the petition for relief is not an available remedy under the Uniform Rules, that the Province failed to establish extrinsic fraud, and that Marco’s appointment fell within the exception of CSC Resolution No. 030918 because he was fully qualified and had undergone screening before the election ban.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

This Court framed three issues: whether the July 6, 2010 implementation Resolution varied the terms of the April 14, 2008 Resolution; whether the withdrawal of the certification of sufficiency of funds voided Marco’s appointment; and whether Marco’s appointment was void as a midnight appointment.

Standard on Finality and Proper Remedy

The Court reaffirmed that decisions of the Civil Service Commission become final and executory if no motion for reconsideration is filed within the 15‑day reglementary period under Rule VI, Section 80 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and it applied the doctrine of immutability of final judgments as developed in Mendiola v. Civil Service Commission and Obiasca v. Basallote to conclude that the April 14, 2008 resolution became immutable on June 6, 2008 because the Province received the resolution May 21, 2008 and filed no timely motion for reconsideration.

Ruling on the Availability of Petition for Relief

The Court observed that a petition for relief is not among the remedies provided under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and held that even if a petition for relief were available, the Province failed to demonstrate extrinsic fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence that would excuse its failure to file a motion for reconsideration when it had actual notice of the April 14, 2008 resolution.

Effectivity of Appointment and Implementation Order

The Court explained that under CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40‑98, an appointment takes effect upon issuance by the appointing authority and remains effective during the pendency of a motion for reconsideration or appeal; because Marco’s appointment took effect June 25, 2004 and he seasonably filed a motion for reconsideration, the Commission’s grant of that motion meant reinstatement and entitlement to back salaries, and the Commission therefore did not vary but properly implemented the April 14, 2008 resolution by ordering reinstatement and payment of back pay.

Sufficiency of Funds and Certification

The Court held that Marco’s appointment complied with Rule V, Section 1(e)(ii) of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40‑98 because it was accompanied by the required certification of available funds from the Provincial Budget Officer and Provincial Accountant, and that the subsequent withdrawal of that certification without documentary proof did not retroactively void the appointment; the Court also noted that a false certification is subject to administrative sanction and directed investigation of the officials who issued and withdrew the certification.

Midnight Appointment Claim and Applicable Civil Service Rules

Addressing the Province’s midnight appointment contention, the Court held that the constitutional prohibition in Article VII, Section 15, 1987 Constitut

...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