G.R. No. L-48639 March 16, 1987
ELISEO ALINSUGAY, PURITA VILLAFLOR, PAZ GANDIONGCO and CELSO REMO, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, RENE ESPINA, OSMUNDO RAMA, PABLO GARCIA, REYNALDO MENDIOLA, VALERIANO CARILLO, THE PROVINCIAL TREASURER OF CEBU AND THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR OF CEBU, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Eliseo Alinsugay, Purita Villaflor, Paz Gandiongco, and Celso Remo were appointed as laborers in various offices of the Provincial Government of Cebu by then Governor Rene Espina. Their appointments were submitted to and attested by the local Civil Service Commission. However, the Provincial Auditor advised the Provincial Treasurer that, pursuant to Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 528 , appointments to positions in the unclassified civil service required approval by the Provincial Board; otherwise, salaries would be disallowed in audit. Consequently, the appointments were forwarded to the Provincial Board for action.
The initial board session showed a sentiment for approval, but Governor Espina stated he wished to “abstain,” and further action was delayed due to election concerns. After the elections, the new Provincial Board considered the appointments. While some appointments were approved, those of the petitioners were specifically disapproved. Their subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioners then filed a petition for mandamus and damages before the Court of First Instance of Cebu, seeking reinstatement, inclusion in the plantilla, payment of salaries, and damages, which was dismissed. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the petitioners, whose appointments were attested by the Civil Service Commission and who had received salaries, acquired a legal right to their positions despite the subsequent disapproval of their appointments by the Provincial Board of Cebu.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The legal logic is anchored on the mandatory statutory requirement for appointments in the unclassified civil service. Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, explicitly requires that such appointments be submitted to and approved by the Provincial Board to be valid and effective. The Court, citing its prior ruling in the consolidated case of Taboy v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-47472), held that the Civil Service attestation and the prior payment of salaries do not cure the fundamental defect of lack of board approval. An appointment remains incomplete and invalid without this requisite approval.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the respondent provincial board members cannot be held liable for damages for their official act of disapproval. The authority to approve appointments inherently includes the power to disapprove. In the absence of any proof of malice or bad faith in the exercise of this discretionary power, the respondents are insulated from personal liability. The Court emphasized that there is no legal right to perpetuate an appointment made in violation of a clear statutory mandate, and thus, no error in discontinuing the payment of salaries.