Altres v. Empleo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In July 2003, then Iligan City Mayor Franklin M. Quijano announced numerous vacant career positions. Between May and June 2004, toward the end of his term, he issued appointments to 59 petitioners. However, the Sangguniang Panglungsod (SP) issued resolutions requesting the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to suspend action on these appointments, citing a policy against 'midnight appointments' and the need to enact a new budget. Consequently, respondent City Accountant Camilo G. Empleo refused to issue the certification of availability of funds required by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 40, Series of 1998, and other respondents refused to sign position description forms. Procedural History: The CSC Field Office and Regional Office No. XII disapproved the appointments due to the lack of the required certification of availability of funds. Petitioners filed a petition for mandamus with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City to compel the City Accountant to issue the certification. The RTC denied the petition, ruling that under Section 344 of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC), the ministerial function to certify fund availability belongs to the City Treasurer, not the Accountant. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the Supreme Court. They argued that Section 474(b)(4) of the LGC, rather than Section 344, governs the Accountant's duty to certify budgetary allotments for appointments. Respondents countered with technical objections, noting that the verification and certification against forum shopping were signed by only 11 of the 59 petitioners and lacked competent evidence of identity.
Issue(s)
Whether the petition should be dismissed due to the defective verification and certification against forum shopping signed by only 11 out of 59 petitioners. Whether the duty to issue a certification of availability of funds for CSC appointments falls under Section 344 or Section 474(b)(4) of the Local Government Code of 1991.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that the technical defects were substantially complied with, but dropped the non-signing petitioners as parties. On the substantive issue, the Court declared that Section 474(b)(4) of the LGC applies to the requirement of certification of availability of funds for CSC appointments, making it the ministerial duty of the City Accountant. However, the case was rendered moot and academic by the final disapproval of the appointments by the CSC.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the verification signed by 11 petitioners was sufficient to assure the Court that the allegations were made in good faith. Regarding the certification against forum shopping, while the general rule requires all petitioners to sign, the Court allowed substantial compliance because the petitioners shared a common interest. However, the Court clarified that those who did not sign the certification must be dropped as parties to the case. The Court restated the rules: verification defects are generally curable, while certification defects are not, unless special circumstances exist. The Court also noted that the subsequent submission of notarized documents with community tax certificates cured the initial lack of identification evidence. On Issue 2: The Court found that the RTC erred in applying Section 344 of the LGC. Section 344 pertains to actual disbursements for 'due and demandable' obligations, which require a voucher showing services rendered or expenses incurred. Since the petitioners' appointments were not yet approved, no services had been performed, and no due obligation existed. In contrast, Section 474(b)(4) requires the Accountant to certify the availability of budgetary allotment to which expenditures and obligations 'may be properly charged.' This provision applies to administrative requirements like the CSC certification, which is a prerequisite for the approval of an appointment. Therefore, it is the ministerial duty of the City Accountant to issue such certification when an appropriation exists, regardless of whether actual payment is currently due.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court distinguishes between Section 344 and Section 474(b)(4) of the Local Government Code of 1991 (LGC). Section 344 applies to actual disbursements of money from the local treasury for due and demandable obligations, requiring a certification of fund availability from the Local Treasurer. Conversely, Section 474(b)(4) requires the Local Accountant to certify the availability of budgetary allotment to which expenditures and obligations may be properly charged. Therefore, for the purpose of satisfying Civil Service Commission (CSC) requirements for appointments where no services have yet been rendered, the duty to certify fund availability falls upon the Local Accountant.