Macalino v. Commission on Audit
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Raul F. Macalino (Macalino) ran for the position of Vice Mayor of San Fernando City, Pampanga, in the May 2013 elections but was unsuccessful. On July 1, 2013, less than two months after his electoral loss, the Municipal Government of Mexico, Pampanga, through Mayor Roy D. Manalastas, entered into a contract of service with Macalino. Under this contract, Macalino was engaged as a 'Legal Officer II' with a monthly salary of PHP 26,125.00. The duties assigned to him included formulating measures for the Sanggunian and providing legal assistance to the Mayor, which mirrored the statutory duties of a regular plantilla Legal Officer. Procedural History: On March 28, 2014, the Commission on Audit (COA) issued Notice of Disallowance (ND) No. 14-001-100-(13), disallowing the payment of PHP 149,015.00 representing Macalino's wages and Personnel Economic Relief Assistance (PERA). The COA determined that the hiring violated the one-year ban on appointing losing candidates under Article IX-B, Section 6 of the Constitution and Section 94 of the Local Government Code (LGC). Macalino appealed the ND to the COA Regional Office No. III and subsequently to the COA Commission Proper, both of which affirmed the disallowance, noting that his designation as Legal Officer II was a clear violation of the law. The Petition: Macalino filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 64 in relation to Rule 65 before the Supreme Court. He argued that his engagement under a contract of service did not constitute an 'appointment' to a public office because it did not require an oath of office. He further contended that there was no circumvention of the ban because he ran in San Fernando City but was hired in the Municipality of Mexico. Finally, he pleaded that even if the disallowance was proper, he should not be required to return the funds based on the principle of quantum meruit, having rendered services in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether the one-year prohibition against appointing losing candidates to any government office applies to contracts of service and job orders. Whether the prohibition applies when the losing candidate is hired by a different local government unit from the one where they ran for office. Whether the principle of quantum meruit can be applied to reduce the civil liability of a lawyer who accepted an engagement in violation of the constitutional ban.
Ruling
The Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. The Decision and Resolution of the Commission on Audit are AFFIRMED. Raul F. Macalino is held solidarily liable with the approving and certifying officers (excluding the disbursing officer) for the return of the disallowed amount of PHP 149,015.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court applied the verba legis rule, holding that Article IX-B, Section 6 of the Constitution and Section 94(b) of the Local Government Code (LGC) are clear and admit of no exceptions. The phrase 'any office in the Government' is broad and does not distinguish between a regular plantilla appointment and a contract of service. Under the maxim 'Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus,' the Court refused to read qualifications into the law that were not written there. The Court noted that Macalino's duties as a contractual 'Legal Officer II' were identical to the powers and duties of a regular Legal Officer under Section 481 of the LGC. Consequently, the lack of an oath of office does not exempt the engagement from the constitutional ban, as the law seeks to prevent the rewarding of 'political lame ducks' and respect the electorate's rejection of the candidate. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that the one-year prohibition applies to all losing candidates regardless of the position sought or the territorial jurisdiction of the hiring office. Macalino's argument that he ran in one city and was hired in another municipality was deemed 'ludicrous' and a contradiction of the unambiguous provisions of the law. The Court emphasized that the electorate's volition would be flouted if a candidate could simply move to a different jurisdiction to be immediately appointed to a government office. Allowing such a distinction would open the door to potential abuses and selective interpretation of a fundamental restriction intended to maintain the integrity of the civil service. On Issue 3: While the Court acknowledged the Torreta v. COA guidelines regarding the application of quantum meruit in irregular contracts, it held the principle inapplicable in this specific case. The Court emphasized that quantum meruit is an equitable device intended to prevent the government's unjust enrichment at the expense of innocent parties, not to aid those who engage in 'manifest or palpable' violations of the Constitution. As a member of the Bar, Macalino is presumed to know the law and cannot claim good faith in entering a contract that blatantly skirts a constitutional prohibition. Equity follows the law and will not permit that to be done indirectly which is prohibited directly; thus, because the contract was constitutionally infirm and the parties were in bad faith, the full amount must be returned without reduction.
Main Doctrine
The constitutional and statutory one-year ban on appointing losing candidates to 'any office in the Government' is a mandatory restriction rooted in the principle of respecting the electorate's will. The prohibition is not limited to permanent appointments but extends to all forms of engagement, including contracts of service and job orders, especially when the duties performed are identical to those of a regular plantilla position. Furthermore, the principle of quantum meruit, which allows recovery for the reasonable value of services rendered to prevent unjust enrichment, is inapplicable when the underlying contract is void for being a blatant circumvention of a constitutional prohibition. A member of the Bar is specifically precluded from claiming good faith in such transactions as they are duty-bound to know and uphold the fundamental law.