G.R. No. 123989 January 26, 1998
ATTY. DAVID B. CORPUZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, and MOVIE AND TELEVISION REVIEW AND CLASSIFICATION BOARD, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Atty. David B. Corpuz was appointed as the MTRCB’s Legal Counsel Prosecutor and Investigation Services (Supervising Legal Staff Officer) on July 18, 1986, an appointment approved by the CSC-NCR. His position was later designated Attorney V. In August 1991, the MTRCB passed Resolution No. 8-1-91, declaring all appointments of administrative and subordinate employees made without prior Board approval as null and void ab initio, citing a violation of Section 5 of P.D. No. 876-A and later P.D. No. 1986. The resolution allowed employees to hold over in their positions pending new recommendations. Corpuz was unaware of this resolution initially. In 1992, a new MTRCB Chairman, Henrietta S. Mendez, was appointed. Upon learning of Resolution No. 8-1-91, an Ad Hoc Committee was formed to review appointments. The committee recommended approval of all appointments except that of Corpuz and seven others. By a memorandum dated June 28, 1993, Corpuz was informed that at the MTRCB regular meeting of June 25, 1993, his appointment was disapproved, effective June 30, 1993. Corpuz filed a complaint with the CSC. The CSC, in Resolution No. 93-5964, ruled in favor of Corpuz, declaring his separation not in order, ordering his automatic restoration with back salaries, on the grounds that his appointment was presumed regular and he had acquired security of tenure. The MTRCB’s motion for reconsideration was denied. The MTRCB filed a special civil action for certiorari, referred to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the CSC, ruling Corpuz’s appointment was invalid for lack of MTRCB Board approval as required by P.D. No. 1986, and thus he could not invoke security of tenure. Meanwhile, on August 22, 1994, Corpuz became a permanent employee of the Ombudsman. In his petition before the Supreme Court, Corpuz explicitly declared he was no longer seeking reinstatement with the MTRCB but sought continuity of government service from his dismissal until his employment with the Ombudsman, plus back salaries and benefits.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the appointment of petitioner Atty. David B. Corpuz did not have the approval of the MTRCB Board, thereby violating his constitutional right to security of tenure.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that under Section 16 of P.D. No. 1986, the MTRCB has the power to approve or disapprove the appointment of employees. The appointment of Corpuz, extended by then Chairman Manuel Morato, was not submitted to nor approved by the MTRCB as a collegial body. Citing jurisprudence (Favis v. Rupisan, Civil Service Commission v. Joson, Civil Service Commission v. Salas, Mitra v. Subido, and Tomali v. Civil Service Commission), the Court ruled that compliance with all legal requirements is essential for a valid appointment. The requirement of Board approval is a statutory prerequisite that cannot be dispensed with, and the presumption of regularity of official acts cannot apply when the law expressly requires consent or approval of another body. The tolerance, acquiescence, or mistake of officials resulting in non-observance of this requirement does not render it ineffective. Since Corpuz’s appointment lacked the required Board approval, it was invalid. Consequently, he did not acquire a vested right to the position and could not invoke security of tenure. He was considered merely a de facto officer during his occupancy of the office. Therefore, his separation from service was valid.