GR 110598; (December, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 110598 December 1, 1994
Mona A. Tomali, petitioner, vs. Civil Service Commission, Office on Muslim Affairs (OMA) and Rocaina M. Lucman, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Mona A. Tomali was appointed as Development Management Officer II (DMO II) in the Office on Muslim Affairs (OMA) on July 1, 1990. She assumed the duties of the position on November 1, 1990. However, this appointment was not transmitted to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) for approval within the required thirty-day period. Subsequently, on July 16, 1991, the new OMA Executive Director, Dr. Ali Basir Lucman, revoked Tomali’s incomplete appointment and appointed private respondent Rocaina M. Lucman to the same DMO II position. Tomali protested her replacement, but the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) dismissed her complaint, ruling her appointment was incomplete and ineffective due to non-submission to the CSC.
ISSUE
Whether the revocation of Mona A. Tomali’s appointment and the subsequent appointment of Rocaina M. Lucman constituted a violation of Tomali’s right to security of tenure.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding no grave abuse of discretion by the public respondents. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of an incomplete appointment. Under Section 9(h) of P.D. No. 807 and Section 11, Rule V of the Omnibus Rules Implementing the Administrative Code, an appointment requiring CSC approval becomes ineffective if not submitted to the Commission within thirty days from its issuance. Tomali’s appointment, never having been submitted for approval, remained incomplete. Consequently, no title to the office was permanently vested in her, and the appointing authority retained the discretion to recall or revoke it. An incomplete appointment does not confer security of tenure. The Court emphasized that the power of appointment is discretionary, and the new OMA Director acted within his authority in appointing Lucman, absent any showing of arbitrariness or bad faith. The tolerance of Tomali’s assumption of duties did not cure the defect of non-submission or convert her appointment into a completed act. Therefore, her protest against Lucman’s subsequent appointment had no legal basis.