Case Summary (G.R. No. 110598)
Grounds for Incomplete Appointment and Legal Effect
Under Rule V, Section 11 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V, EO No. 292, any appointment not submitted to the CSC within thirty days from issuance “shall be ineffective.” Tomali’s failure to secure CSC approval rendered her appointment incomplete and void by operation of law.
Merit Systems Protection Board’s Ruling and Legal Basis
The MSPB dismissed Tomali’s protest on 23 July 1992. It held that because the CSC had not approved her appointment within the thirty-day period, Tomali had no legal right to the position or security of tenure. The Board confirmed the appointing authority’s prerogative to revoke such incomplete appointments and to appoint another qualified person.
Civil Service Commission’s Resolution
In CSC Resolution No. 93-945 (12 March 1993), the Commission affirmed its power to recall Tomali’s appointment prior to its approval and dismissed her appeal for lack of merit. The CSC reiterated that once Tomali’s appointment was recalled, she no longer had standing to protest Lucman’s subsequent appointment.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Appointment Approval Requirement
Citing Section 9(h) of PD No. 807 (as embodied in the 1987 Constitution, Article IX-B), the Court emphasized that the CSC must approve all civil service appointments within thirty days or they become ineffective. Approval determines eligibility and compliance with appointment rules. Without such approval, no title to the office is permanently vested.
Security of Tenure and De Facto Officer Doctrine
The Court held that an unapproved appointee is merely a de facto officer. Security of tenure attaches only to completed appointments. Tomali’s delay in assuming office—four months post-issuance—underscored her failure to verify or secure timely CSC action, further weakening her clai
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 110598)
Facts of the Case
- On July 1, 1990, petitioner Mona A. Tomali was appointed Development Management Officer II (DMO II) in the Office on Muslim Affairs (OMA) by Executive Director Dimasangcay A. Pundato.
- Petitioner assumed the duties of DMO II on November 1, 1990, four months after her appointment, even though the appointment had not yet been transmitted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for approval.
- Prior to this appointment, petitioner served at Mindanao State University as Records Clerk (June 1, 1983–December 31, 1986), Clerk Typist (January 2, 1987–June 30, 1989), and Budget Assistant (July 1, 1989–October 31, 1990).
- On July 16, 1991, the new OMA Director, Dr. Ali Basir Lucman, revoked petitioner’s incomplete appointment and appointed private respondent Rocaina M. Lucman as DMO II.
- Petitioner protested her replacement via letters dated July 29, 1991, and August 12, 1991; OMA’s Human Resources Management Division communicated the disapproval/expiration of her appointment on August 1, 1991.
- Private respondent took her oath and assumed office immediately thereafter.
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a protest/complaint with the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), which, in a decision dated July 23, 1992, dismissed the case for lack of merit.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the MSPB was denied on November 27, 1992.
- Petitioner appealed to the Civil Service Commission; in Resolution No. 93-945 (March 12, 1993), the CSC dismissed the appeal for lack of merit.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an appointment to a civil service position that was not submitted to the CSC within thirty days from issuance is valid and confers security of tenure.
- Whether the appointing authority may revoke or recall such an incomplete appointment and appoint another person.
- Whether petitioner’s continued stay in office without CSC approval entitled her to invoke security of tenure.
Applicable Law and Rules
- 1987