G.R. No. 177795 June 19, 2009
LEAH M. NAZARENO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. CITY OF DUMAGUETE, represented by City Mayor Agustin Perdices, Dominador Dumalag, Jr., Erlinda Tumongha, Josephine Mae Flores and Araceli Campos, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners were bona fide employees of the City Government of Dumaguete appointed to various positions by outgoing City Mayor Felipe Antonio B. Remollo, Jr. in June 2001, shortly before the end of his term. The appointments included both promotional and original appointments. On July 2, 2001, newly elected City Mayor Agustin Perdices announced he was not recognizing these appointments. Subsequently, city officials issued memoranda to stop salary differentials and payments, told some petitioners not to report for work, and deleted their names from the list of city employees. Petitioners filed a Petition for Mandamus with Injunction and Damages on August 1, 2001. On the same day, Director II Fabio Abucejo of the Civil Service Commission Field Office (CSC-FO) invalidated and revoked the appointments, citing violations of CSC Memorandum No. 010988, noting the appointments were made by an outgoing official after the election, involved a large number (89 appointments), and lacked proper Personnel Selection Board (PSB) documentation. Petitioners appealed to the CSC Regional Office, which affirmed the invalidation. The CSC Proper, in Resolution No. 040932, also dismissed petitioners’ appeal, relaxing procedural rules to allow the appointees to appeal but upholding the invalidation as “mass appointments” by an outgoing chief executive. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC Resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether the appointments made by outgoing Mayor Remollo in June 2001 are valid or constitute prohibited “midnight appointments.”

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court ruled that the appointments were invalid as they constituted “midnight appointments” made in violation of Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 010988. The guidelines under this resolution aim to prevent outgoing officials from making mass appointments for ulterior partisan motives. The appointments were issued after the May 2001 elections when the outgoing mayor had lost, involved a large number (89 appointments), and were made without adequate PSB screening and documentation. The Court emphasized that while outgoing officials are not absolutely barred from making appointments, such appointments must be justified by urgent needs and follow proper procedures, which were not met in this case. The CSC’s invalidation was upheld as a valid exercise of its constitutional authority to enforce civil service laws and rules.