Obiasca v. Basallote
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Jeane O. Basallote was appointed Administrative Officer II by the City Schools Division Superintendent on May 26, 2003. Subsequently, the new Superintendent advised the School Principal to return the papers of applicants, including respondent's, for re-ranking and endorsement of only qualified applicants. Despite assuming the position on June 19, 2003, respondent was informed that her appointment could not be forwarded to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) due to the School Principal's refusal to sign the Position Description Form (PDF). Respondent was advised to return to her former teaching position, which she did. On August 25, 2003, petitioner Arlin B. Obiasca was appointed to the same position and his appointment was attested by the CSC. Procedural History: Respondent filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon, which found the Superintendent and Principal administratively liable. Respondent also filed a protest with the CSC Regional Office V, which was initially dismissed, reinstated, and then dismissed again for lack of merit. An appeal to the CSC was granted, approving respondent's appointment and recalling petitioner's. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the CSC acted without basis. The CA denied the petition, upholding respondent's appointment. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Petitioner seeks review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, arguing that respondent's appointment was never attested by the CSC, rendering it incomplete and subject to recall. He contends that failure to submit the appointment to the CSC within 30 days, as required by the Omnibus Rules, made it ineffective, thus vacating the position for his subsequent appointment. Petitioner asserts that the CSC's resolution approving respondent's appointment and recalling his was improperly handled, and that the CA erred in upholding respondent's appointment despite the lack of CSC attestation within the prescribed period.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure to submit respondent's appointment to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) within thirty (30) days from its issuance rendered the appointment ineffective. Whether the Civil Service Commission (CSC) resolution dated November 29, 2005, recalling petitioner's appointment and approving respondent's appointment, had become final and executory. Whether Section 9(h) of PD 807, requiring submission of appointments within 30 days, is still operative or has been amended by EO 292. Whether the deliberate acts of officials in preventing the submission of respondent's appointment to the CSC should prejudice respondent. Whether petitioner's subsequent appointment was void.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision affirming respondent Jeane O. Basallote's appointment as Administrative Officer II and recalling petitioner Arlin B. Obiasca's appointment.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the 30-day submission period and the effectivity of the appointment: The Court held that petitioner's reliance on an overly restrictive reading of Section 9(h) of PD 807 was incorrect. The provision states that an appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance by the appointing authority if the appointee assumes duties immediately, and shall remain effective until disapproved by the CSC. The Court emphasized that the real issue was whether the deliberate failure of the appointing authority to submit the appointment paper to the CSC within 30 days made the appointment ineffective. Substantial reasons dictated that it did not. The Court clarified that Section 12, Book V of EO 292 amended Section 9(h) of PD 807 by deleting the requirement that appointments be submitted within 30 days, thus rendering that restrictive period inoperative. Therefore, the appointment remained effective until disapproved by the CSC, and it was never disapproved. On the finality and executory nature of the CSC resolution: The Court found that petitioner committed a fatal procedural lapse by failing to file a petition for reconsideration of the CSC resolution dated November 29, 2005, before filing a petition for review in the CA. According to Sections 16 and 18 of Rule VI of the Omnibus Rules, failure to file a petition for reconsideration within fifteen days renders the CSC decision final and executory. Thus, the CSC resolution had become immutable and could no longer be changed, revised, amended, or reversed. Petitioner's prayer for reversal of the CA decision, which affirmed the final and executory CSC resolution, was an attempt to reverse a final and executory judgment, disregarding the doctrine of immutability of final judgments. On the amendment of Section 9(h) of PD 807 by EO 292: The Court unequivocally stated that Section 12, Book V of EO 292 amended Section 9(h) of PD 807 by deleting the requirement that appointments be submitted within 30 days. The Court explained that an amendment by deletion indicates an intention to change the meaning, and the excised words are considered inoperative. The restrictive period and punitive effect of Section 9(h) of PD 807 were deliberately discarded by EO 292, and insisting on their retention would be rewriting the law by judicial interpretation. On the deliberate acts of officials preventing submission: The Court found that the failure to submit respondent's appointment to the CSC was not due to her fault but to the unjustified refusal of Ma. Teresa U. Diaz to sign the PDF on a fallacious ground, and the willful withholding of information by Oyardo and Gonzales. These deliberate acts of malfeasance and grave abuse of discretion by superiors unjustly deprived respondent of pursuing her legal remedies. Applying Article 1186 of the Civil Code, the condition (submission of appointment) was deemed fulfilled when the obligor (officials) voluntarily prevented its fulfillment. The Court stressed that an innocent appointee should not be penalized for the malice and grave abuse of discretion of her superiors. On the voidness of petitioner's subsequent appointment: The Court ruled that petitioner's appointment was void because it was made to a non-vacant position. An incumbent must be legally removed or their appointment validly terminated before another can be appointed. Furthermore, the appointing authority effectively revoked respondent's appointment and usurped the power of the CSC to withdraw or revoke an accepted appointment. Section 9, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules clearly states that an appointment accepted by the appointee cannot be withdrawn or revoked by the appointing authority and remains in force until disapproved by the CSC. The Court reiterated that the insistence on a strict application of the 30-day submission rule would give the appointing authority the power to indirectly achieve what they cannot do directly, which is to revoke an accepted appointment.
Main Doctrine
An appointment in the civil service, though not submitted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) within the prescribed period, remains effective until disapproved by the CSC, especially when the failure to submit was due to the deliberate acts of officials and not the fault of the appointee. Furthermore, the deliberate failure of officials to submit an appointment to the CSC within the prescribed period cannot be used to prejudice the appointee, as this would reward wrongdoing and malfeasance in the appointment process.