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

Alinsugay versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Eliseo Alinsugay, Purita Villaflor, Paz Gandiongco, and Celso Remo against the Court of Appeals and the officials of the province of Cebu — Governor Rene Espina, Vice-Governor Osmundo Rama, board members Pablo Garcia, Reynaldo Mendiola, Valeriano Caril, and others, together with the provincial treasurer and the provincial auditor. The petitioners were laborers appointed to various offices of the provincial government whose appointments the provincial board later disapproved; they sued for mandamus and damages, asking to be continued in employment and paid their salaries. The case matters because it fixes the rule on when an appointment in the unclassified civil service becomes complete and valid, and it teaches that the power to approve appointments necessarily carries the power to disapprove them.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a petition for mandamus and damages before the Court of First Instance of Cebu. That court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It held that, to be complete and valid, the appointments had to be made in accordance with Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code, which requires appointments in the unclassified civil service to be submitted to and approved by the provincial board. It further held that approval of the provincial budget and plantilla did not amount to approval of the appointments, that attestation by the Civil Service Commission did not complete them, that the board's disapproval was lawful, and that mere acquisition of civil service eligibility did not make the petitioners' status permanent.

The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the decision of the lower court. Their motion for reconsideration was denied. They then filed the present petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, which gave due course to the petition. The Court later granted the petitioners' motion to consolidate this case with another case involving the same facts, issues, and applicable laws. A decision was thereafter promulgated in that companion case, and the Court resolved the present petition in light of that ruling.

Facts

The petitioners were appointed as laborers in various offices of the provincial government of Cebu. After the governor signed their appointments, these were submitted to the local office of the Civil Service Commission for attestation. The Cebu provincial auditor then advised the provincial treasurer that the appointments of the four petitioners and forty-four others, whose positions belonged to the unclassified civil service, had to be approved by the provincial board under Section 2081 of the Administrative Code, as amended, failing which their salaries would not be allowed in audit.

The provincial treasurer indorsed this advice to the governor and wrote the provincial board requesting approval or disapproval of the appointments of the forty-eight laborers. When the matter was taken up in a regular session of the board, the vice-governor and two board members present expressed themselves in favor of approval, while the governor said he wanted to abstain. The Civil Service Commission then advised the governor that all appointments in the unclassified or non-competitive positions in the provincial service had to be approved by the provincial board to be valid and effective. The governor was constrained to submit the appointments to the board, but action was delayed because the board did not meet, the governor being occupied with the coming local elections.

After the elections, the governor submitted the appointments of the forty-eight laborers to the new provincial board. Some appointments were approved, but others, including those of the petitioners, were disapproved. The petitioners sought reconsideration from the governor, but this was denied. They then filed their petition for mandamus and damages, praying that they be continued in employment, included in the provincial plantilla or a supplemental budget, and paid all salaries due them, plus moral damages, attorney's fees, and other damages.

Issues

• Whether or not the petitioners could still be dismissed as laborers notwithstanding the approval or attestation of their appointments by the Civil Service Commission and their having collected salaries under audited payrolls.
• Whether or not the private respondents are liable for moral damages for the alleged illegal dismissal of the petitioners.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 528, governs appointments in the unclassified civil service of the province. The decision states its substance as follows:

Appointments in the unclassified civil service should be submitted to and approved by the provincial board.

This provision is decisive because it makes the approval of the provincial board an essential element of a valid appointment in the unclassified provincial service, so that attestation by the Civil Service Commission alone does not complete the appointment.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petitioners could still be dismissed as laborers. It found no compelling reason to depart from its ruling in the companion case, which arose from the same factual milieu, where it had held:

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.

Attestation by the Civil Service Commission, therefore, did not cure the absence of the required approval by the provincial board, and the petitioners acquired no legal right over their positions.

On the second issue, the Court held that the private respondents, as members of the Cebu provincial board who disapproved the appointments, could not be held liable for that act. As the lower court correctly observed, 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 the private respondents, they cannot be held liable for their official act. The Court likewise agreed with the Court of Appeals that there was no reason to perpetuate or continue the mistake, if there was one, in the payment of salaries, considering that the petitioners had no legal right over their positions.

Doctrine

An appointment in the unclassified civil service of a province is not complete and valid unless it is submitted to and approved by the provincial board, as Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code, as amended, requires. Attestation by the Civil Service Commission does not substitute for that approval, and years of service under audited payrolls do not convert an invalid appointment into a valid one or vest a legal right to the position.

The power conferred by law on a body to approve appointments necessarily includes the power to disapprove them. Members of such a body cannot be held personally liable in damages for a disapproval made in the exercise of that official power, absent proof of malice.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, without costs; the respondents prevailed and the petition was denied.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: without the approval of the provincial board, an appointment in the unclassified civil service is not a valid appointment, no matter the attestation of the Civil Service Commission or the years of service. Examiners use this case to test the completeness of appointments under Section 2081 of the Revised Administrative Code and the rule that the power to approve carries the power to disapprove, shielding official action from damages absent malice.