Alinsugay v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Eliseo Alinsugay, Purita Villaflor, Paz Gandiongco, and Celso Remo were appointed as laborers in various offices of the provincial government of Cebu. Following the governor's signing of their appointments, the provincial auditor advised that these appointments, along with forty-four others for positions in the unclassified civil service, required approval from the provincial board to ensure their salaries would be allowed in audit. The provincial board members initially expressed their intent to approve these appointments, but the governor abstained. Subsequently, the Civil Service Commission also advised that such appointments needed provincial board approval to be valid. 2. Procedural History: After a delay, the governor submitted the appointments to a new provincial board. Some appointments were approved, but those of the petitioners were disapproved. A subsequent request for reconsideration was denied. The petitioners then filed a petition for mandamus and damages against various provincial officials in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. This court dismissed the petition, ruling that the appointments were invalid without provincial board approval and that the petitioners did not possess a permanent status. The petitioners appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. Their motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the instant petition for review on certiorari. 3. The Petition: The petitioners seek review of the Court of Appeals' decision via petition for certiorari. They raise two main issues: (a) whether they could be dismissed despite their appointments being attested by the Civil Service Commission and having received salaries under audited payrolls, and (b) whether the private respondents are liable for moral damages due to the alleged illegal dismissal. The petitioners also moved for the consolidation of this case with a similar case, G.R. No. L-47472, which was granted. However, a decision was later promulgated in the consolidated case, affirming the Court of Appeals' ruling that appointments made without the necessary provincial board approval were invalid, regardless of Civil Service attestation or service rendered.
Issue(s)
Whether petitioners could still be dismissed as laborers notwithstanding the approval of their appointments by the Civil Service Commission and their having collected salaries under audited payrolls. Whether private respondents are liable for moral damages for the alleged illegal dismissal of the petitioners.
Ruling
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Petitioners' appointments were not valid without the approval of the Provincial Board of Cebu. The disapproval of their appointments by the provincial board was a lawful exercise of their official duty, and in the absence of proof of malice, they cannot be held liable for damages. There is no reason to perpetuate or continue the payment of salaries to petitioners who do not have a legal right over their positions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of appointments and dismissal: The Court reiterated its ruling in G.R. No. L-47472, stating that it matters not that the appointments of the petitioners had been attested by the Commissioner of Civil Service and that they had served for several years because the appointments, having been made without the approval of the Provincial Board of Cebu, were not valid appointments. Section 2081 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 528, mandates that appointments in the unclassified civil service must be submitted to and approved by the provincial board to be complete and valid. The attestation by the Civil Service Commission does not cure the defect of lack of provincial board approval. Consequently, the petitioners did not acquire a legal right to their positions, and their dismissal was lawful. On the liability for damages: The Court held that the members of the provincial board, who disapproved the petitioners' appointments, could not be held liable for such an act. The power and authority conferred by law on a body to approve appointments inherently carries with it the corresponding power to disapprove. The Court found no proof of malice on the part of the private respondents in disapproving the appointments. Therefore, their official act of disapproval was lawful and did not give rise to a claim for moral damages. The Court also agreed with the Court of Appeals that there was no reason to perpetuate or continue the mistake, if any, in the payment of salaries, considering that the petitioners did not possess a legal right to their positions.
Main Doctrine
Appointments in the unclassified civil service require the approval of the provincial board to be valid and effective. Disapproval of such appointments by the provincial board, in the absence of proof of malice, is a lawful exercise of official duty and does not give rise to liability for damages.