Montuerto v. Ty
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Melanie P. Montuerto was appointed Municipal Budget Officer of Almeria, Biliran, on March 17, 1992, with her appointment subsequently approved as permanent by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). However, on January 14, 2002, the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) of Almeria passed a resolution requesting the CSC to revoke her appointment due to the alleged failure to secure the SB's concurrence. The SB asserted that the concurrence was inadvertently omitted from the minutes of a March 2, 1992 session, claiming verbal concurrence was given. Procedural History: The CSC Regional Office No. VIII initially recalled Montuerto's appointment on March 11, 2002, for lack of SB concurrence. Despite a motion for reconsideration and a certification from the SB Secretary stating no record of submission for concurrence existed, the CSCRO denied the motion. The CSC Central Office affirmed this decision on July 1, 2004, dismissing Montuerto's appeal. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied on June 7, 2005. Following this, Montuerto was indefinitely detailed to another project, her allowances were removed, and her services were terminated on July 11, 2005, based on the CSC resolution. Montuerto then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals (CA), which was denied. The Petition: This Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeks to reverse the CA's decision and resolution. The sole issue raised is whether an appointment, initially approved by the CSC and held by the appointee for nearly ten years without interruption, can be revoked for lack of written concurrence from the Sangguniang Bayan, especially when verbal concurrence is claimed. The petitioner argues that the appointment, having been served for a decade and approved by the CSC, should be considered valid despite the alleged lack of formal SB concurrence.
Issue(s)
Whether the appointment of petitioner as Municipal Budget Officer, without the written concurrence of the Sanggunian, but duly approved by the CSC and after the appointee had served as such for almost ten years without interruption, can still be revoked by the Commission. Whether verbal concurrence from the Sanggunian is sufficient to satisfy the requirement under Republic Act No. 7160.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Civil Service Commission's recall of petitioner's appointment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the appointment can be revoked despite long service and CSC approval: The Court held that the law is clear under Sections 443(a) and (d) of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code). The head of a municipal government department, such as the Municipal Budget Officer, must be appointed by the mayor with the concurrence of the majority of all Sangguniang Bayan members. The factual finding that the petitioner's appointment was never submitted to the Sangguniang Bayan for concurrence, or that no such concurrence was obtained, is deemed final and conclusive as it was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This Court is not a trier of facts and will not disturb such findings absent any exceptions. Therefore, the Civil Service Commission has the authority to recall the appointment. On the issue of whether verbal concurrence is sufficient: The Court agreed with the ruling of the Court of Appeals that verbal concurrence allegedly given by the Sanggunian is not the concurrence required under R.A. No. 7160. The Sanggunian, as a body, acts through a resolution or an ordinance. Absent such a formal resolution of concurrence, the appointment of the petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 443(a) and (d) of R.A. No. 7160. Consequently, without a valid appointment, the petitioner acquired no legal title to the Office of Municipal Budget Officer, regardless of her ten years of service.
Main Doctrine
An appointment requiring the concurrence of the Sangguniang Bayan, as mandated by the Local Government Code, is invalid without such concurrence, even if approved by the Civil Service Commission and the appointee has served for a considerable period. The Sangguniang Bayan acts through a resolution or ordinance, and verbal concurrence is insufficient.