GR 131136; (February, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 131136 February 28, 2001
CONRADO L. DE RAMA, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ELADIO MARTINEZ, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Upon assuming office as Mayor of Pagbilao, Quezon, petitioner Conrado L. de Rama sought the recall of the appointments of fourteen municipal employees issued by the outgoing mayor, Ma. Evelyn S. Abeja, in June 1995. Petitioner alleged these were “midnight appointments” issued in violation of the constitutional ban applicable to the President under Article VII, Section 15. While this recall request was pending with the Civil Service Commission (CSC), some appointees filed a claim for unpaid salaries. The CSC’s Legal Division ruled they were entitled to compensation, citing rules that an appointee who has assumed duties is entitled to salary without awaiting final CSC approval.
The CSC, in a subsequent resolution, denied petitioner’s recall request for lack of merit. It held that the constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments applies only to the President, not to local elective officials. It further ruled that the appointments, having been approved by the CSC Field Office and with no evidence presented of fraud or violation of law, were immediately effective and could not be unilaterally withdrawn by the new mayor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the appointments issued by the outgoing municipal mayor are invalid as “midnight appointments.”
RULING
No. The Supreme Court, affirming the Court of Appeals, upheld the validity of the appointments. The constitutional prohibition under Article VII, Section 15 is explicitly confined to appointments made by the President or Acting President. This textual limitation precludes its extension by analogy to local government officials. An outgoing local chief executive retains the authority to make appointments until the last day of their term, provided the appointments comply with civil service laws and rules on qualifications.
The legal logic rests on the principle that an appointment, once issued and attested by the CSC Field Office as in this case, is immediately effective. The new appointing authority cannot revoke it merely on the basis of a change in administration. Recall or revocation is permissible only upon a clear showing that the appointment was issued in violation of law or rules, such as if the appointee lacked the required qualifications. Petitioner failed to present substantial evidence of such defect, fraud, or irregularity. The Court emphasized that the appointees, having assumed their positions, acquired a vested legal right to their offices, protected by statute, which cannot be capriciously withdrawn. The nature and timing of the appointments, absent proof of illegality, did not render them invalid.