Scribd
Upload
91 views2 pages

De Rama Vs CA

The document discusses a case where a mayor sought to recall the appointments of 14 municipal employees made by the previous mayor. The Civil Service Commission denied the request, finding that there was no law prohibiting appointments by local officials near the end of their term. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, noting the employees were validly appointed and assumed their positions.

Uploaded by

Jayson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
91 views2 pages

De Rama Vs CA

The document discusses a case where a mayor sought to recall the appointments of 14 municipal employees made by the previous mayor. The Civil Service Commission denied the request, finding that there was no law prohibiting appointments by local officials near the end of their term. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, noting the employees were validly appointed and assumed their positions.

Uploaded by

Jayson
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

G.R. No.

131136 February 28, 2001

CONRADO L. DE RAMA, petitioner,


vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS (NINTH DIVISION, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION), ELADIO MARTINEZ,
DIVINO DE JESUS, MORELL AYALA, ARISTEO CATALLA, DAISY PORTA, FLORDELIZA ORIASEL, GRACIELA
GLORY, FELECIDAD ORINDA Y, MA. PETRA MUFFET LUCE, ELSA MARINO, BERNARDITA MENDOZA, JANE
MACATANGA y ADELFO GLODOVIZA and FLORENIO RAMOS, respondents.

Facts:
De Rama wrote a letter to CSC seeking to recall the appointments of 14 municipal employees. He justified his recall
request on the allegation that, the appointments of the said employees were "midnight" appointments of the former
Mayor Abeja, done in violation of Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides:

Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidexntial elections and up to the end of his term, a
President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions
when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

He also withheld the payment of their salaries. According to the CSC Legal and Quasi- Judicial Division, they are entitled
to receive salary based on Rule V, Section 10 of the Omnibus Rules which provides, in part, that "if the appointee has
assumed the duties of the position, he shall be entitled to receive his salary at once without awaiting the approval of his
appointment by the Commission"

CSC denied De Rama’s request and cited Rule V, Sections 9 and 10 of the Omnibus Rules, and declared that the
appointments of the said employees were issued in accordance with pertinent laws. The CSC also dismissed De Rama’s
allegation that these were "midnight" appointments, pointing out that the Constitutional provision relied upon by
petitioner prohibits only those appointments made by an outgoing President and cannot be made to apply to local elective
officials. Thus, the CSC opined, "the appointing authority can validly issue appointments until his term has expired, as
long as the appointee meets the qualification standards for the position." In the absence of any showing that these
alleged midnight appointments were defective in form and in substance, nor is there evidence presented to show that
subject appointments were issued in contravention of law or rules, these appointments are deemed valid and in effect.
Mayor de Rama failed to present evidence that subject appointments should be revoked or recalled.

Issue:
WON the appointments made by former Mayor Abeja were invalid for being “midnight appointments”.

Held:
No. The prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to presidential appointments. In truth and in fact, there is no
law that prohibits local elective officials from making appointments during the last days of his or her tenure.

A thorough perusal of the records reveal that the CSC's ruling is supported by the evidence and the law. The fourteen
(14) employees were duly appointed following two meetings of the Personnel Selection Board held on May 31 and June
26, 1995. There is no showing that any of the private respondents were not qualified for the positions they were
appointed to. Moreover, their appointments were duly attested to by the Head of the CSC field office at Lucena City. By
virtue thereof, they had already assumed their appointive positions even before petitioner himself assumed his elected
position as town mayor. Consequently, their appointments took effect immediately and cannot be unilaterally revoked or
recalled by De Rama.

It has been held that upon the issuance of an appointment and the appointee's assumption of the position in the civil
service, "he acquires a legal right which cannot be taken away either by revocation of the appointment or by removal
except for cause and with previous notice and hearing."17 Moreover, it is well-settled that the person assuming a position
in the civil service under a completed appointment acquires a legal, not just an equitable, right to the position. This right
is protected not only by statute, but by the Constitution as well, which right cannot be taken away by either revocation of
the appointment, or by removal, unless there is valid cause to do so, provided that there is previous notice and hearing. 18

Rule V, Section 9 of the Omnibus Implementing Regulations of the Revised Administrative Code specifically provides that
"an appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and shall remain
in force and in effect until disapproved by the Commission." Thus, it is the CSC that is authorized to recall an appointment
initially approved, but only when such appointment and approval are proven to be in disregard of applicable provisions of
the civil service law and regulations. 19

Moreover, Section 10 of the same rule provides:

Sec. 10. An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules shall take effect immediately upon its
issuance by the appointing authority, and if the appointee has assumed the duties of the position, he shall be
entitled to receive his salary at once without awaiting the approval of his appointment by the Commission. The
appointment shall remain effective until disapproved by the Commission. In no case shall an appointment take
effect earlier than the date of its issuance.

Section 20 of Rule VI also provides:

Sec. 20. Notwithstanding the initial approval of an appointment, the same may be recalled on any of the following
grounds:
(a) Non-compliance with the procedures/criteria provided in the agency's Merit Promotion Plan;
(b) Failure to pass through the agency's Selection/Promotion Board;
(c) Violation of the existing collective agreement between management and employees relative to promotion; or
(d) Violation of other existing civil service law, rules and regulations.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy