La Carlota City v. Rojo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the appointment of Atty. Rex G. Rojo as Secretary of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of La Carlota City. Rojo, who had previously resigned as a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, was appointed to the Secretary position with permanent status. The validity of this appointment was challenged, primarily on the grounds that his resignation as a member was not effective due to a lack of quorum during the session where it was tendered, and consequently, his subsequent appointment violated the constitutional prohibition against an elective official holding an appointed position during their tenure. 2. Procedural History: The appointment of Atty. Rojo as Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary was initially approved by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office No. VI, reversing the CSC Field Office's disapproval. The CSC then dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners (La Carlota City officials) on the grounds that they were not the proper parties. The petitioners further appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the CSC's resolutions. The CSC's decision was based on the substantial compliance with appointment requirements and the validity of Rojo's resignation. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that Rojo met the qualifications and that the appointment did not violate election ban periods. 3. The Petition: The petitioners, represented by the Mayor and Vice-Mayor of La Carlota City, filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. They argue that Atty. Rojo's resignation from the Sangguniang Panlungsod was ineffective because the session where it was presented lacked a quorum, as the Vice-Mayor, who presided, should not be counted in determining quorum. Consequently, they contend that Rojo remained an elective official and was ineligible for appointment as Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary, violating Article IX-B, Section 7 of the Constitution. They also argue that the appointment was issued contrary to civil service rules and regulations.
Issue(s)
WHETHER THE APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT AS SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD SECRETARY VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROSCRIPTION AGAINST ELIGIBILITY OF AN ELECTIVE OFFICIAL FOR APPOINTMENT DURING HIS TENURE; WHETHER RESPONDENT’S APPOINTMENT AS SANGGUNIANG PANLUNGSOD SECRETARY WAS ISSUED CONTRARY TO EXISTING CIVIL SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The 14 September 2007 Decision and the 18 January 2008 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 01377 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the appointment violated the constitutional proscription against an elective official's appointment during tenure: The Court held that respondent Atty. Rex G. Rojo's resignation as Sangguniang Panlungsod member was validly accepted. This was based on Section 82(d) of RA 7160, which states that irrevocable resignations by sanggunian members are deemed accepted upon presentation in an open session and entry into the records, provided there is a quorum. The Court determined that the Sangguniang Panlungsod of La Carlota City is composed of thirteen (13) members, including the Vice-Mayor as presiding officer. On March 17, 2004, seven (7) members were present, constituting a quorum. Therefore, Rojo was no longer an elective official when he was appointed Sangguniang Panlungsod Secretary on March 18, 2004, thus not violating Section 7, Article IX-B of the Constitution. On the issue of whether the appointment was issued contrary to existing civil service rules and regulations: The Court found that the appointment substantially complied with the requirements. While the Human Resource Management Officer's signature was missing, other requirements such as publication, Personnel Selection Board deliberation, and certification of available funds were met. The Court reiterated that the CSC's duty in attesting appointments is to ascertain eligibility and minimum qualifications, which Rojo possessed as a lawyer. The refusal of the HRM Officer to sign was deemed not to affect the appointment's validity, as it would place the appointing power at the mercy of a department head. Furthermore, the appointment on March 18, 2004, did not violate the election ban period (March 26 to May 9, 2004), and there was no substantial evidence of a "midnight appointment."
Main Doctrine
The Vice-Mayor, as the presiding officer of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, is considered a member of the Sangguniang Panlungsod for purposes of determining quorum, and an irrevocable resignation is deemed accepted upon its presentation in an open session and entry into the records, provided there is a quorum.