GR 160791; (February, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160791 ; February 13, 2007
PATRICIO E. SALES, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. HON. RODOLFO H. CARREON, JR., and THE CITY GOVERNMENT OF DAPITAN CITY, Respondents.
FACTS
In May 2001, then Mayor Joseph Cedrick O. Ruiz of Dapitan City lost his re-election bid to respondent Rodolfo H. Carreon, Jr. In his final month in office, Mayor Ruiz issued 83 appointments, including those of the petitioners. Upon assuming office on July 1, 2001, Mayor Carreon, Jr. revoked these appointments via Memorandum Orders, citing a violation of the election ban on appointments and alleging they were issued in bulk without urgent need. The Civil Service Commission (CSC) Regional Office initially declared the appointments valid and nullified the Mayor’s orders.
On appeal, the CSC En Banc reversed the Regional Office. It found the appointments violated Republic Act No. 7041 , as the vacant positions were published before they were officially declared vacant. The CSC also noted a procedural defect: the Personnel Selection Board lacked a first-level representative during the screening process, contravening civil service rules. The Court of Appeals sustained the CSC En Banc’s decision.
ISSUE
Whether the appointments issued by the outgoing Mayor are valid and effective.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, declaring the appointments void. The legal logic rests on substantive and procedural violations of civil service laws. First, the appointments contravened R.A. No. 7041 , which mandates transparency by requiring vacancies to be published only after they are officially declared. Here, the positions were published prior to the declaration of vacancy, undermining the law’s purpose of ensuring equal opportunity. Second, the appointments failed to comply with the prescribed selection process. The Omnibus Rules Implementing the Administrative Code require the Personnel Selection Board to include a representative from the first-level employees when screening candidates for first-level positions. The absence of such representation during the deliberation for the petitioners’ appointments rendered the process defective. Consequently, the CSC correctly exercised its authority to recall appointments issued in disregard of civil service regulations. The Court emphasized that while not all “midnight appointments” are invalid per se, these were issued in violation of specific statutory and regulatory procedures, justifying their revocation.