GR 152017; (January, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152017; January 15, 2004
Occidental Mindoro National College (OMNC) and Ofelia A. Rebong, petitioners, vs. Virginia P. Macaraig, respondent.
FACTS
This case originates from a resolved dispute in G.R. No. L-48781 (Sicat v. Manuel). Virginia Sicat was validly appointed as Assistant Principal of San Jose National High School in 1975, with her appointment attested by the Civil Service Commission (CSC). Despite this, School Principal Bernabe Macaraig (husband of respondent Virginia Macaraig) refused to honor it. The Department of Education and Culture (DEC) and CSC later revoked Sicat’s appointment, and Virginia Macaraig was appointed to the position in 1977. The Office of the President ultimately ruled in 1981 that Sicat’s original appointment was valid and complete, making Macaraig’s appointment void. Consequently, Macaraig was separated from service.
Subsequently, Bernabe Macaraig, as President of petitioner OMNC, appointed his wife, Virginia Macaraig, as Dean of the College of Education at OMNC in 1988. Petitioner Ofelia Rebong, then OMNC President, terminated Macaraig’s deanship in 1991. Macaraig sued for reinstatement and payment of back salaries and benefits. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals ruled in her favor, ordering OMNC to pay her monetary claims.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Virginia Macaraig is entitled to reinstatement and payment of back salaries, benefits, and attorney’s fees from OMNC.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and dismissed Macaraig’s complaint. The legal logic rests on the invalidity of her appointment as Dean. Her appointment was issued by her husband, Bernabe Macaraig, in violation of the explicit prohibition under the Administrative Code of 1987 (Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Chapter 8, Section 59), which bars the appointment of relatives within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity to positions where one would be a subordinate or have immediate supervision over the other. This prohibition is mandatory and renders the appointment void from the beginning.
Consequently, a void appointment confers no legal right to the position or to any compensation attached to it. The principle of “no work, no pay” applies. Since her deanship was unlawfully created, she cannot claim back salaries or any emoluments from OMNC. Furthermore, her claim for attorney’s fees is baseless. Government entities are generally not liable for such costs when sued in their official capacity, especially where, as here, the petitioner’s case was pursued in public interest to correct an unlawful appointment. Any liability for her salary claims would theoretically fall upon the appointing authority—her husband—for issuing an unlawful appointment, not upon OMNC.