GR 177736; (October, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177736; October 6, 2008
MELANIE P. MONTUERTO, petitioner, vs. HONORABLE MAYOR ROLANDO E. TY and THE SANGGUNIANG BAYAN, represented by HONORABLE VICE-MAYOR RICHARD D. JAGUROS, all of the Municipality of Almeria, Biliran, respondents.
FACTS
On March 17, 1992, petitioner Melanie P. Montuerto was issued a permanent appointment as Municipal Budget Officer of Almeria, Biliran, by then Mayor Supremo T. Sabitsana. The appointment was approved by the Acting Civil Service Commission Field Officer on March 24, 1992. On January 14, 2002, the Sangguniang Bayan (SB) passed a resolution requesting the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO) to revoke Montuerto’s appointment for failure to secure the required SB concurrence. The CSCRO found that the appointment lacked the required concurrence and recalled its approval on March 11, 2002. Montuerto submitted a Joint Affidavit from a majority of the then SB members, stating that a verbal concurrence was given during a March 2, 1992 session but was inadvertently omitted from the minutes. The SB Secretary, however, certified that no record showed the appointment was submitted for concurrence. The CSCRO denied reconsideration, and the CSC Central Office affirmed the recall. The Municipal Mayor subsequently terminated Montuerto’s services. The Court of Appeals denied her petition. Montuerto appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing her appointment, approved by the CSC and after ten years of service, could no longer be revoked.
ISSUE
Whether the appointment of petitioner as Municipal Budget Officer, without the written concurrence of the Sanggunian, but duly approved by the CSC and after the appointee had served as such for almost ten years without interruption, can still be revoked by the Commission.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The law, specifically Section 443(a) and (d) of the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160), mandates that the Municipal Budget Officer shall be appointed by the mayor with the concurrence of the majority of all Sangguniang Bayan members. The factual finding of the quasi-judicial agencies, affirmed by the CA, that the appointment was never submitted for or obtained such concurrence, is final and conclusive. The Court held that the verbal concurrence alleged by petitioner is not the concurrence required by law; the Sanggunian acts as a body through a resolution or ordinance. The absence of a resolution of concurrence meant the appointment failed to comply with a mandatory requirement. Consequently, without a valid appointment, petitioner acquired no legal title to the office, even after ten years of service. The Civil Service Commission therefore had the authority to recall the appointment.