ELISEO ALINSUGAY, PURITA VILLAFLOR, PAZ GANDIONGCO AND CELSO REMO, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, RENE ESPINA, OSMUNDO RAMA, PABLO GARCIA, REYNALDO MENDIOLA, VALERIANO CARIL…

Petitioners Eliseo Alinsugay, Purita Villaflor, Paz Gandiongco and
Celso Remo were appointed
laborers in various offices of the provincial government of
Cebu.  After the
then governor, Rene Espina, had signed their
appointments, the same were submitted to the local office of the Civil Service
Commission for attestation.  Thereafter, the Cebu provincial auditor advised the provincial treasurer
that the appointments of the four petitioners and forty-four others whose positions belonged to the unclassified civil
service, should be approved by the provincial board pursuant to Section 2081 of
the Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 528, otherwise, their
salaries would not be allowed in audit (Exh.
7).

The provincial treasurer then indorsed the provincial
auditor’s advice to the governor.  He also sent a letter to the
provincial board requesting “approval or disapproval” of the appointments
of the forty-eight laborers (Exhs. RR & 8).

Said letter was one of the matters discussed in the provincial
board’s regular session.  The minutes of that session reveal that
the provincial vice-governor and the two present board members expressed the opinion that they were
for the approval of the appointments while the governor stated that he wanted to
“abstain” (Exhs. UU &
VV).

Subsequently, the governor received a communication from the Civil
Service Commission advising him that all appointments in the unclassified or
non-competitive positions in the provincial service including that of the
provincial board secretary, must be approved by the provincial board to be valid
and effective.  The governor was therefore constrained to submit
the appointments to the provincial board (Tsn.,
September 28, 1972, p. 16).  However, the action on the
appointments was delayed because the provincial board did not meet as the governor was more concerned with the coming local elections
(Tsn., supra, p. 21).

After the elections, the governor decided to submit the
appointments of the forty-eight laborers to the new provincial board. 
Some of the appointments were approved but others, including those of the
petitioners, were disapproved (Exhs. 10 to
13-A).  Petitioners sought the governor’s reconsideration of the
provincial board’s resolution but the same was denied.  (Exh. 5).

Alinsugay and his co-petitioners herein
then filed a petition for mandamus and damages against the governor, the
vice-governor, the members of the provincial board, the
provincial treasurer and the provincial auditor.  They prayed that
the respondents be ordered to “continue all petitioners in their employment”, to
include them in the provincial plantilla or any
supplemental budget, and to appropriate the necessary funds to cover all the
salaries due them.  They also prayed that the members of the
provincial board be ordered to pay jointly and severally each of the petitioners
P5,000 as moral damages and P2,000 as attorney’s fees
plus exemplary, actual and consequential damages (Record in Civil Case No. R-11016, pp. 4 & 5).

In its decision, the Court of First Instance of Cebu dismissed the petition for lack of merit. 
It ruled that, to be complete and valid, the appointments should have
been made in accordance with Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code
which provides that appointments in the unclassified civil service should be
submitted to and approved by the provincial board.  It also held
that the approval of the provincial budget and plantilla by the provincial board did not mean the approval
of the appointments; that the appointments were not completed through their
attestation by the Civil Service Commission; that the provincial board’s
disapproval of their appointments was lawful; and that mere acquisition of a
civil service eligibility by the petitioners did not make their status permanent
(CFI Decision, pp. 44-49; Record, pp. 624-629).

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the
lower court’s decision.  Their motion for reconsideration having
been denied, petitioners filed the instant petition for review on
certiorari.  They submit to this Court the issues of: 
(a) whether or not they could still be dismissed as laborers
notwithstanding the approval of their appointments by the Civil Service
Commission and their having collected salaries under audited payrolls, and (b)
whether or not private respondents are liable for moral damages for the alleged
illegal dismissal of the petitioners (Petition, pp. 4-5; Rollo, pp. 16-17).

We gave due course to the petition.  Subsequently,
the petitioners filed an urgent ex-parte motion praying for the
consolidation of this case with G.R. No. L-47472, Valentino
Taboy, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., on the ground that “the
facts involved, issues raised and laws applicable in the instant case are
the same or similar” to those in G.R. No. L-47472 (Rollo, p. 113).  The
motion for consolidation was granted in the resolution of September 24,
1979 (Rollo, p. 121).

Notwithstanding that resolution, on July 24, 1981, a decision was
promulgated in G.R. No. L-47472 (105 SCRA 758). 
In said case and in affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision, this Court
ruled that “it matters not that the appointments of the petitioners had been
attested by the Commissioner of Civil Service and that they had served for
several years because the appointments having been made without the approval of
the Provincial Board of Cebu, they were not valid
appointments” (idem, on page 761).

There is no compelling reason to depart from that ruling most
especially because the aforecited case and this case
arose from the same factual milieu.  We should also add that the
private respondents, who, as members of the Cebu
provincial board, disapproved the petitioners’ appointments, may not be held
liable for such act.  As correctly observed by the lower court, by
force of logic, the power and authority conferred by law on a body to approve
appointments, carries with it the corresponding power to disapprove. 
In the absence of proof of malice on the part of private respondents,
they cannot be held liable for their official act.

We also share the view of the Court of Appeals that there is no
reason to perpetuate or continue the mistake, if there was, in the payment of
salaries of the petitioners (CA Decision, p. 12; Rollo, p. 46), considering that petitioners do not
have a legal right over their positions.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby
affirmed.  No costs.

SO
ORDERED.

Fernan, (Chairman), Gutierrez, Jr., Paras, Padilla, Bidin, and Cortes, JJ.,
concur.