University of the Philippines College of Law
EVB
Topic Security of Tenure
Case No. G.R. No. 131136. February 28, 2001.*
Case Name De Rama vs. Court of Appeals
Ponente YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
RELEVANT FACTS
Upon his assumption to the position of Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner Conrado L. de
Rama wrote a letter to the CSC, seeking the recall of the appointments of 14 municipal
employees.
o justified his recall request on the allegation that the appointments of the said
employees were “midnight” appointments of the former mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja,
done in violation of the Constitution
CSC denied petitioner’s request for the recall of the appointments of the fourteen employees,
for lack of merit.
CA upheld the CSC ruling.
RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
Were the “midnight” Petitioner’s solitary reason for recalling these appointments was
appointments violated the that they were, to his personal belief, “midnight appointments”
Constitution? which the outgoing mayor had no authority to make. The CSC
NO, the said prohibition applies correctly ruled that the constitutional prohibition on so-called
only to presidential “midnight appointments,” specifically those made within 2 months
appointments. In truth and in immediately prior to the next presidential elections, applies only to
fact, there is no law that the President or Acting President.
prohibits local elective officials
from making appointments If ever there were other procedural or legal requirements that
during the last days of his or her were violated in implementing the appointments of the private
tenure. respondents, the same were not seasonably brought before the Civil
Service Commission. These cannot be raised for the first time on
appeal.
The grounds for the recall of the appointments that petitioner
raised in his supplemental pleading to the consolidated appeal and
motion for reconsideration are that: (1) the rules on screening of
applicants based on adopted criteria were not followed; (2) there
was
no proper posting of notice of vacancy; and (3) the merit and fitness
requirements set by the civil service rules were not observed.
Failure of the petitioner to raise said grounds and to present
supporting documents constitute a waiver thereof and the same
arguments and evidence can no longer be entertained on appeal
before the CSC, nor in the Court of Appeals, and much less in a
petition for review before the Supreme Court.
A thorough perusal of the records reveal that the CSC’s ruling is
University of the Philippines College of Law
EVB
supported by the evidence and the law. The 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
petitioner.
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.” 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.
Petitioner admits that his very first official act upon assuming the
position of town mayor was to issue Office Order No. 95-01 which
recalled the appointments of the private respondents. There was no
previous notice, much less a hearing accorded to the latter. Clearly,
it
was petitioner who acted in undue haste to remove the private
respondents without regard for the simple requirements of due
process of law. In doing so, he overstepped the bounds of his
authority. While he argues that the appointing power has the sole
authority to revoke said appointments, there is no debate that he
does not have blanket authority to do so. Neither can he question
the
CSC’s jurisdiction to affirm or revoke the recall
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
University of the Philippines College of Law
EVB
regulations.
RULING
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant petition for review is DENIED and the Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 42896
affirming CSC Resolutions Nos. 96-2828 and 96-7527 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. No pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED.
