Civil Service Commission v. Joson
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Felicisimo O. Joson, Jr., then Administrator of the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA), appointed Priscilla Ong as Executive Assistant IV under a contractual status on July 1, 1995. This followed the Department of Budget and Management's (DBM) approval for the creation of the said contractual position. Ong lacked the required college degree for the position. Procedural History: Respondent Joson requested the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to exempt Ong from the educational qualification requirement. The CSC, in Resolution No. 956978 dated November 2, 1995, approved the appointment under a Coterminous Temporary status, acknowledging Ong's 65 college units and the position's coterminous nature with the appointing authority. Subsequently, a post-audit report by the CSC National Capital Region (NCR) invalidated the appointment's July 1, 1995 effectivity. The effectivity date was adjusted to November 2, 1995. Respondent Joson then requested payment of Ong's salary for July 1, 1995, to October 31, 1995. The CSC denied this request in Resolution No. 974094, citing the Attrition Law (Rep. Act No. 7430) and holding Joson personally liable for salaries prior to the November 2, 1995 authority to fill. The CSC denied Joson's motion for reconsideration in Resolution No. 981399, emphasizing the failure to include the appointment in the July 1995 Report on Personnel Action (ROPA). Further motions for clarification and reconsideration were denied, with the CSC holding Joson personally liable for salaries from July 1, 1995, to October 30, 1995, in Resolution No. 991839 and Resolution No. 001956. The CSC finally denied a motion for reconsideration in Resolution No. 002778. The Petition: The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC resolutions, ruling that Ong was a de facto officer entitled to salary. The CSC, as petitioner, filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that Ong was not entitled to salary prior to November 2, 1995, due to lack of qualifications, violation of civil service law and rules, absence of prior authority to appoint under RA 7430, and failure to report in the July ROPA.
Issue(s)
Whether Priscilla Ong is entitled to payment of her salaries for the period of July 1, 1995, to October 31, 1995, and whether her appointment was valid despite her lack of the prescribed educational qualification. Whether the Attrition Law (Rep. Act No. 7430) applies to the appointment of Priscilla Ong to a newly-created position. Whether the failure to include the appointment in the July 1995 Report on Personnel Action (ROPA) renders the appointment ineffective. Whether Priscilla Ong can be considered a de facto officer entitled to salary, or whether she was a de jure officer. On the principle of quantum meruit and personal liability of the respondent.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Court of Appeals' Decision, insofar as it is consistent with this Decision, is AFFIRMED. Priscilla Ong is entitled to the payment of her salaries for services rendered from July 1, 1995, to October 31, 1995.
Ratio Decidendi
On the entitlement to salary and validity of appointment: The Court ruled in favor of the respondent, holding that Priscilla Ong is entitled to payment of her salaries. The position of Executive Assistant IV was newly created and approved by the DBM. Although Ong lacked the required college degree, the CSC approved her appointment under a Coterminous Temporary status, considering her 65 college units and the position's nature. The Court emphasized that an appointment, even if lacking full qualifications, is valid until disapproved by the CSC. The CSC's own resolution allowing the appointment under a coterminous temporary status, coupled with the fact that Ong assumed her duties, made her a de jure officer entitled to salary from the date of assumption, as provided by civil service rules. The Court cited Section 10, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules, stating that an appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance by the appointing authority if the appointee has assumed duties, and the appointee is entitled to salary even without awaiting CSC approval, as long as the appointment is not disapproved. On the applicability of the Attrition Law (Rep. Act No. 7430): The Court rejected the CSC's contention that the Attrition Law was violated. The Court clarified that Rep. Act No. 7430 applies only to appointments made to fill vacant positions resulting from resignation, retirement, dismissal, death, or transfer. Since Ong was appointed to a newly-created position, the Attrition Law, which mandates prior CSC authorization to fill vacancies, was not applicable. The DBM had approved the creation of the position, and the CSC subsequently approved the appointment under a coterminous temporary status. Therefore, the respondent did not violate the Attrition Law by appointing Ong without first securing an "authority to fill" for a vacancy. On the Report on Personnel Action (ROPA) and its effectivity: The Court found the respondent's justification for the delayed inclusion of Ong's appointment in the July 1995 ROPA to be valid. The POEA did not include the appointment in the July ROPA because the request for exemption from the educational requisite was still pending resolution by the CSC. The CSC's resolution approving the exemption was received only in November 1995, and the appointment was subsequently reported in the November ROPA. The Court held that this belated report did not render the appointment ineffective, especially since the appointment was validly made and approved under a coterminous temporary status. On the status of Priscilla Ong as a de facto officer: The Court clarified that Ong was not merely a de facto officer but a de jure officer. A de facto officer possesses the office under color of authority, while a de jure officer holds the office by right. Given that the CSC approved her appointment under a coterminous temporary status, and she assumed the duties of the position, her appointment was considered valid until disapproved. Therefore, she was entitled to receive her salary as a de jure officer for the services rendered. On the principle of quantum meruit and personal liability: The Court did not directly rule on the quantum meruit argument raised by the respondent in relation to the POEA's benefit. However, by affirming Ong's entitlement to salary and finding her appointment valid, the Court implicitly rejected the CSC's imposition of personal liability on the respondent for the payment of Ong's salary. The ruling focused on the validity of the appointment and the entitlement to salary based on services rendered under a validly approved, albeit temporary, status.
Main Doctrine
An appointment to a newly-created position, even if the appointee lacks the prescribed qualifications and is appointed under a coterminous temporary status, is valid until disapproved by the Civil Service Commission, entitling the appointee to salary for services rendered. The Attrition Law does not apply to newly-created positions.