GR 87743; (August, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 87743 August 21, 1990
ROBERT F. ONG, petitioner, vs. MARIA TERESITA HERRERA-MARTINEZ, THE CITY COUNCIL OF MANILA and THE CITY TREASURER OF MANILA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Robert F. Ong, a defeated Liberal Party (LP) candidate, was appointed by the Secretary of Local Government on February 9, 1989, to fill the vacancy left by the death of Councilor Saturnino Herrera. His appointment was based on an endorsement from the LP district treasurer. However, the Manila City Council refused to recognize him, excluding him from sessions. Subsequently, respondent Maria Teresita Herrera-Martinez, daughter of the deceased councilor, was formally nominated through LP channels, including by the party’s national head. She received an appointment from the same Secretary on March 17, 1989, which the City Council recognized. Ong filed this petition to annul Martinez’s appointment and declare himself the rightful holder of the office.
ISSUE
The primary issue is which appointment is valid: Ong’s earlier appointment or Martinez’s subsequent appointment. Sub-issues involve the propriety of the nomination process under the Local Government Code and the applicability of the election ban on appointments.
RULING
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Martinez’s appointment and dismissed the petition. The legal logic centers on the proper nomination procedure and the inapplicability of the election ban. First, the Court found that Martinez’s appointment complied with the mandatory procedure under the Local Government Code. Her nomination originated from the appropriate LP officials, including the party’s national head, as required. In contrast, Ong’s nomination by a mere district treasurer was unauthorized and defective, rendering his appointment void from the start. The Secretary of Local Government explicitly recalled Ong’s appointment on this ground.
Second, the Court ruled that the election ban under the Omnibus Election Code did not apply to these appointments. The ban prohibits the creation of new positions or the hiring of new employees under civil service rules during election periods. However, filling a permanent vacancy in an elective local office, like a city councilor seat, is governed specifically by the Local Government Code. This process is distinct from regular administrative appointments covered by the ban. Therefore, neither appointment was invalidated by the election period. Since Martinez’s appointment satisfied all legal requisites, she was the rightful appointee. The Court lifted the restraining order against her.