LOCGOV - #138 Nazareno vs.

City of Dumaguete (2009) Doctrine: The general rule is that appointments shall take effect immediately; and should the appointees already assume the duties of their positions, they shall be entitled to receive their salary at once. There is no need to wait for the approval of the appointments by the CSC. The appointments shall be effective until disapproved by the CSC. Facts: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. 7.

8. 9.

The 52 petitioners in this case were all bona fide employees of the City of Dumaguete appointed to various positions by City Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo, Jr. sometime in June 2001, shortly before the end of his term. On July 2001, the newly elected Mayor Perdices announced that he was not recognizing the appointments made by former Mayor Remollo. Thereafter, the Treasurer was directed not to make any disbursements pertaining to petitioners and petitioners names were deleted from the list of employees. The petitioners filed a petition for Mandamus with injunction and damages before the RTC of Dumaguete against the Mayor and 4 other City Officers (Civil Case). On the same day, Director II Fabio Abucejo (Abucejo) of the Civil Service Commission Field Office (CSC-FO), pursuant to CSC Memorandum No.001374, invalidated and revoked the appointments made by former Mayor Remollo in June 2001 because the appointments were in violation of Items No. 3(d) and 4 of CSC Resolution No. 010988 dated 4 June 2001, which prohibit the outgoing chief executive from making mass appointments after elections. A copy of the CSC-FOs findings were given to the petitioners and upon receipt, they filed a motion for reconsideration before the CSC Regional Office VII. The CSC RO dismissed this reasoning that the motion should be filed before the CSC FO. The petitioners filed another motion to treat their first motion as an appeal. The CSC RO dismissed appeal and affirmed the CSC FOs decision. Petitioners elevated the case to the CSC Proper. The CSC Proper noted that generally, it is the appointing officer who appeals invalidated appointments but relaxed the rule in this case as the appointing authority was no longer in power. However, the appeal was still dismissed. The petitioners filed before the CA a petition for certiorari. The CA dismissed this and affirmed the CSC decision. The petitioners filed a petition for the review of this decision before the SC. Meanwhile, the RTC granted the injunction prayed for in the Civil Case. But upon a motion for reconsideration filed by the respondents, the RTC lifted the injunction. The CA affrimed. This Court also affirmed on the ground that the petitioners had already availed the remedies of law when they appealed the decision of the CSC FO to the CSC RO and then to the CSC Proper. Hence, the injunction was lifted. The petitioners filed a motion to declare the respondents in default in the Civil Case. This was denied by the RTC but the CA declared the respondents in default. The RTC dismissed the case. Hence this petition.

Petitioners argument: 1. They should receive their salaries for the meantime because their appointments are valid until declared invalid (citing an unnumbered CSC Memorandum Circular, issued on 6 December 2001, with the subject matter: Reiteration of the Strict Implementation of Section 1, Rule IV and Section 3, Rules VI, both of Memorandum Circular No. 40, s. 1998, otherwise known as the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions.) Respondents argument: 1. The right of the petitioners to their positions and salaries is unclear thus, mandamus will not lie. The RTC took note that the invalidation of petitioners appointments by the CSC Proper was then pending appeal before the Court of Appeals and unless it was reversed, petitioners right to the salaries, salary adjustments, and other emoluments claimed, were doubtful. Issues:

1.

2.

Whether petitioners are entitled to the issuance of a writ of mandamus ordering respondents to pay petitioners salaries, salary adjustments, and other emoluments, from 28 September 2001 until this Court finally resolves the issue of the validity of petitioners appointments NO Whether petitioners are entitled to an award for damages resulting from the invalidation of their appointments NO

Held/Ratio: Petition is denied. A. On their right to compel the City Government to pay their salaries 1. The Court noted the following pertinent rules: Rule IV of the Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Personnel Actions, Section 1. An appointment issued in accordance with pertinent laws and rules shall take effect immediately upon its issuance by the appointing authority, and if the appointee has assumed the duties of the position, he shall be entitled to receive his salary at once without awaiting the approval of his appointment by the Commission. The appointment shall remain effective until disapproved by the Commission. x x x Section 3. When an appointment is disapproved, the services of the appointee shall be immediately terminated, unless a motion for reconsideration or appeal is seasonably filed. Services rendered by a person for the duration of his disapproved appointment shall not be credited as government service for whatever purpose. If the appointment was disapproved on grounds which do not constitute a violation of civil service law, such as failure of the appointee to meet the Qualification Standards (QS) prescribed for the position, the same is considered effective until disapproved by the Commission or any of its regional or field offices. The appointee is meanwhile entitled to payment of salaries from the government. If a motion for reconsideration or an appeal from the disapproval is seasonably filed with the proper office, the appointment is still considered to be effective. The disapproval becomes final only after the same is affirmed by the Commission. 2. The general rule is that appointments shall take effect immediately; and should the appointees already assume the duties of their positions, they shall be entitled to receive their salary at once. There is no need to wait for the approval of the appointments by the CSC. The appointments shall be effective until disapproved by the CSC. The CSC has a three-tiered organizational structure, i.e., the CSC-FO, the CSC-RO, and the CSC Proper acting as a collegial body. The disapproval of the appointments by the CSC FO and CSC RO is not final and executory until affirmed by the CSC Proper. Nevertheless, the aforementioned general rules cannot be simply applied to the case at bar given its peculiar circumstances. Section 3 above only applies if there was no violation of civil service laws but if there was, Section 4 states that: The appointing authority shall be personally liable for the salary of appointees whose appointments have been disapproved for violation of pertinent laws such as the publication requirement pursuant to RA 7041. a. This consistent with Sec 65, Chapter 10, Book V of the Administrative Code which states that: No person employed in the Civil Service in violation of Civil Service law and rules shall be entitled to receive pay from the government, but the appointing authority responsible for such unlawful employment shall be personally liable for the pay that would have accrued had the employment been lawful, and the disbursing officials shall make payment to the employee of such amount from the salary of the officers so liable.

3.

4. 5.

The rules laid down by the CSC in CSC Resolution No. 010988, dated 4 June 2001, are deemed included in what is the civil service law, it having the force and effect of law. 7. Since petitioners right to the payment of their salaries by the City Government of Dumaguete is still unsettled at this point, the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus against respondents to make such payment. Mandamus applies only where the petitioners right is founded clearly in law and not when it is doubtful. Until the SC finally resolves the pending petition for review of the CAs affirmation of the CSC Propers disapproval of the petitioners appointments, the issue of who will pay their salaries cannot be settled. B. On damages 1. Mayor Perdices refusal to re-appoint petitioners is merely in exercise of the formers discret ion and does not constitute bad faith. Digested by: BAUTISTA, Justa Aurea G. (A2015)

6.