Aurora v. Marco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Governor Ramoncita P. Ong (Governor Ong) of the Provincial Government of Aurora (the Province) appointed Hilario M. Marco (Marco) as Cooperative Development Specialist II five days before the end of her term. A certification of funds availability was initially provided but later recalled by the Provincial Budget Officer. The newly elected Governor Bellaflor Angara-Castillo assumed office and questioned the availability of funds for the appointment. Procedural History: The Civil Service Commission Field Office-Aurora (the Field Office) disapproved Marco's appointment due to the recalled certification. Marco appealed to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office No. IV (Regional Office), which denied his appeal. Marco then appealed to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which granted his appeal and set aside the Regional Office's decision, ruling that the appointment was valid due to the initial certification of funds. The Province filed a Petition for Relief, which was denied by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Marco requested the Civil Service Commission (CSC) to implement its resolution, which was granted. The Province then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals, which was denied. The Petition: The Province filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, arguing that Marco's appointment was void because he was a midnight appointee and that there were no funds available to pay for the position. The Province also argued that the promulgation of Nazareno v. City of Dumaguete was a supervening event warranting the reversal of the final and executory decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Resolution dated July 6, 2010, which ordered the implementation of the April 14, 2008 Resolution, was void for varying the terms of the April 14, 2008 Resolution. Whether the withdrawal of the certification of sufficiency of funds voided Marco's appointment. Whether Marco's appointment was void on the ground that he was a midnight appointee.
Ruling
The Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated March 2, 2012, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) did not vary the terms of the April 14, 2008 Resolution when it ordered the Province to reinstate Marco and pay him back salaries and other benefits. Under Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 40-98, an appointment takes effect immediately upon issuance by the appointing authority. Marco's appointment took effect on June 25, 2004, when Governor Ong appointed him. Although his appointment was initially disapproved, Marco seasonably filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Because the Civil Service Commission (CSC) granted his Motion for Reconsideration and set aside the disapproval of his appointment, Marco remained entitled to his position, and the necessary consequence of granting reconsideration is his reinstatement as Cooperative Development Specialist II. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) correctly implemented the April 14, 2008 Resolution by ordering Marco's reinstatement and the payment of his back salaries and other benefits. On Issue 2: The Supreme Court held that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) did not err in approving Marco's appointment as Cooperative Development Specialist II, even if the Province allegedly had no funds to cover the position. Marco's appointment was accompanied by a certification from the Province, through the Provincial Budget Officer and the Provincial Accountant, that funds were available under the 2004 Annual Budget of the Province. There was no violation of Rule V, Section 1(e)(ii) of the Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 40-98. The fact that the Province suddenly had no funds to pay for Marco's salaries despite its earlier certification does not affect his appointment. None of the grounds for disapproval of an appointment under Rule V, Section 7 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Civil Service Law exists in this case. On Issue 3: The Supreme Court ruled that Marco's appointment was not void on the ground that he was a midnight appointee. The constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments only applies to presidential appointments, as established in De Rama v. Court of Appeals. It does not apply to appointments made by local chief executives. While the Civil Service Commission (CSC) may establish rules and regulations to promote efficiency and professionalism in the civil service, Resolution No. 030918, which was effective at the time Governor Ong issued the appointment, allows appointments made by elective appointing officials after elections up to June 30 if the appointee is fully qualified and had undergone regular screening processes before the Election Ban. Marco was fully qualified for the position and had undergone regular screening processes before the election ban, as found by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Court of Appeals.
Main Doctrine
The case reiterates the principle that the prohibition on midnight appointments, as enshrined in Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, is specifically applicable to presidential appointments, aiming to prevent outgoing presidents from undermining the incoming administration's policies. However, this constitutional restriction does not extend to appointments made by local chief executives. The Civil Service Commission (CSC), as the central personnel agency, retains the authority to establish rules promoting efficiency and professionalism within the civil service, including the power to regulate appointments by local executives during their final days in office. Furthermore, the doctrine of immutability of final judgments dictates that a final and executory judgment can no longer be altered or amended by the court that rendered it, ensuring stability and preventing endless litigation.