G.R. No. 168484 ; July 12, 2007
LEAH M. NAZARENO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. CITY OF DUMAGUETE, represented by Hon. Mayor AGUSTIN R. PERDICES, ET AL., Respondents.

FACTS

Then Mayor Felipe Antonio Remollo made numerous promotional and original appointments to various city government positions after the May 2001 elections but before the assumption of office of the newly elected mayor, Agustin Perdices. Upon assuming office, Mayor Perdices announced he would not recognize these appointments. The appointees, petitioners herein, filed a Petition for Mandamus, Injunction, and Damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to prevent their dismissal and to compel payment of their salaries. The RTC initially issued a writ of preliminary injunction.
The Civil Service Commission Field Office (CSCFO) Director invalidated the appointments for violating CSC guidelines. The RTC later lifted the injunction, ruling that the CSCFO Director’s action had become final and executory because the appointing authority, Mayor Perdices, did not appeal it. The RTC held the injunction action was moot but allowed the mandamus action for salary claims to proceed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s orders.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s lifting of the injunction and in ruling that the CSCFO Director’s invalidation of the appointments became final due to the appointing authority’s failure to appeal.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The legal logic centers on the doctrine of finality of administrative decisions and the proper party to appeal. Under Section 2, Rule VI of the CSC Omnibus Rules, the right to request reconsideration or appeal the disapproval of an appointment is vested solely in the appointing authority. Here, the appointing authority was Mayor Perdices as the incumbent city mayor, not the outgoing Mayor Remollo. Since Mayor Perdices, who had the legal standing to appeal, did not challenge the CSCFO Director’s ruling, the decision became final and executory.
Consequently, the RTC correctly lifted the preliminary injunction as the basis for the injunction—the validity of the appointments—was extinguished by a final administrative decision declaring them invalid. The petitioners, as mere appointees, had no legal personality to appeal the CSC action; their remedy was to question the validity of the appointments in an appropriate proceeding, not to compel the appointing authority to appeal. The Court emphasized that while the action for injunction became moot, the separate action for mandamus to claim salaries for services actually rendered could proceed, as this issue was distinct from the validity of the appointments themselves.